v  £  n  o  " 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


35 


BS    480    .P37    1893 

Parker,    Joseph,    1830-1902. 

None   like   it 


Shelf. 


■ 


■  ■ 


NONE  LIKE  IT. 


NONE    LIKE    IT 


A    PLEA   FOR   THE    OLD    SWORD 


BY 

JOSEPH     PARKER 

AUTHOR   OF 

Ecce  Deus,"  "The  People's  Bible,"  etc. 


And  David  said,  Give  me  that :  there  is  none  like  it  " 


FLEMING    H.  REVELL   COMPANY 
New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Publishers  of  Evangelical  Literature 


Copyright,  1893, 

BY 

Fleming  H.  Revell  Company. 


PREFACE. 


THIS  book  has  been  written  almost  wholly  from 
a  preacher's  point  of  view.  In  these  days  the 
position  of  the  preacher  is  often  one  of  embarrass- 
ment, because  he  cannot  fail  to  be  aware  that  the  Book 
out  of  which  he  takes  his  texts  is  regarded,  probably 
by  some  of  his  own  hearers,  as  at  best  but  partially  and 
intermittently  inspired.  The  first  thing  the  preacher 
has  to  do  is  to  establish  the  inspiration  of  his  text, 
or,  against  the  will  of  his  more  critical  hearers,  to 
take  it  for  granted.  If  preacher  and  hearer  are  dis- 
agreed as  to  the  inspiration  of  the  text,  and  the  con- 
sequent authority  of  the  text,  the  cleavage  cannot 
but  have  a  disastrous  effect  upon  the  sermon.  The 
sermon  may,  indeed,  not  be  lacking  in  good  things, 
it  may  even  be  instructive  and  interesting ;  yet,  de- 

5 


6  PREFACE. 

riving  no  authority  from  the  text,  it  starts  with  the 
initial  difficulty  of  claiming  faith  upon  the  pretenses 
of  an  invalid  certificate.  In  view  of  such  a  possibility 
it  might  be  well  to  consider  whether  the  text  is  not 
a  snare  and  a  disadvantage. 

In  maintaining  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the 
Bible — and  in  deliberately  and  gratefully  describing 
it  as  the  Word  of  God — I  have  not  overlooked  the 
claim  which  has  been  set  up  for  present-day  inspira- 
tion, quite  as  direct  and  effective  as  the  inspiration 
of  the  prophets  and  apostles.  I  regard  such  a  claim 
with  extreme  suspicion,  for  reasons  fully  stated  in 
the  book.  If  present-day  inspiration,  of  a  prophetic 
and  apostolic  kind,  is  possible,  and  is,  indeed,  actual, 
why  so  vehement  an  appreciation  of  the  inspired 
parts  of  the  Bible  ?  If  inspiration  is  a  commonplace 
in  spiritual  experience,  if  we  always  had  it,  if  we 
have  it  now  in  greater  measure  than  the  Church  ever 
had  it  before,  why  make  so  much  of  Isaiah  and  Jere- 
miah, the  disciple  John  and  the  apostle  Paul  ?  Why 
this  adoration  of  ancient  names?  Why  go  to  them 
for  texts  when  we  can  have  both  texts  and  sermons 
as  directly  from   above   as  we   had   this  morning's 


PREFACE.  7 

dawn  or  yesterday's  refreshing  rain?  Respect  for 
antiquity  may  be  pleaded,  or  reverence  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  inspiration,  but  the  plea  does  not  rise 
above  the  level  of  pious  and  chastened  sentiment; 
certainly  it  strikes  no  note  of  authority,  and  certainly 
whatever  it  may  do  indirectly  for  the  sustenance  of 
independent  faith,  it  can  inflict  no  jus.t  rebuke  upon 
independent  doubt  or  unbelief.  If  John  and  Paul 
only  had  what  we  may  have,  why  take  texts  from 
them  instead  of  taking  them  from  ourselves?  We 
cannot  first  deprive  the  apostles  of  uniqueness  and 
then  clothe  them  with  authority.  Where  there  is 
no  authority  there  can  be  no  appeal.  Where  the 
authority  is  upon  a  level  with  our  own,  why  not  fix 
the  responsibility  upon  our  own  inspiration  instead 
of  citing  texts  and  doctrines  propounded  by  men 
who  are  not  here  to  be  cross-examined  and  tested? 
Men  ought  to  have  the  courage  of  their  inspiration. 
Has  history  magnified  any  inspiration  that  did  not 
involve  contempt,  loss,  reproach,  expulsion,  and  cru- 
cifixion? Did  inspiration  of  an  apostolic  sort  ever 
fit  itself  into  a  popular  and  highly  honored  position  ? 
Inspiration  is  always  proved  on  Golgotha.  It  is  not 
an  ornament :  it  is  a  sacrifice. 


8  PREFACE. 

It  is  strongly  asserted  that  inspiration  does  not 
guarantee  historical  accuracy.  This  is  indeed  a  bold 
assertion ;  from  my  point  of  view  wholly  incredible, 
and  especially  incredible  in  reference  to  the  New 
Testament.  But  the  point  cannot  be  argued  in  a 
prefatory  explanation.  Enough  to  say  that  infinite 
division,  exasperation,  bigotry,  and  heart-burning — 
the  unhappy  experience  of  many  centuries — would 
have  been  saved  if  in  one  pregnant  sentence  the 
Church  had  been  warned  by  the  Revealing  and  In- 
spiring Spirit  that  the  truth  of  the  Bible  was  inter- 
spersed in  a  mass  of  historical  impossibility,  misstate- 
ment, and  postdated  interpolation.  That  no  such 
warning  is  given  is  a  fact  which  has  with  me  the 
force  of  an  argument. 

Joseph  Parker. 

The  City  Temple,  London. 


CONTEXTS. 


-_.--  iraa 

L    THE  WORD  OF   GOD 

IL    THE   PERM AN I NT    QUANTITY 

in.    THE   ORIGINS 

".-.    THE    LIVING  WORD 

WORD   TAUGHT. 
VI. 

VII.  NOTES    AND    CO] 

VIII.  AD   CLERUM 

IX.    EPILOGUE 


:_: 


J. 

THE   WORD  OF  GOD. 


II 


This  book  of  stars  lights  to  eternal  bliss." 

George  Herbert. 


12 


I. 

THE   WORD   OF   GOD. 

SOME  writers,  of  the  highest  Christian  standing, 
have  brought  themselves  to  look  upon  the  Bible 
as  a  book  obviously  marked  by  incongruity,  self-con- 
tradiction, historical  impossibility,  and  occasional 
moral  outrage,  in  which,  nevertheless,  many  a  direct 
and  genuine  message  from  God  may  be  found  if 
sought  for  with  a  reverent,  humble,  and  obedient 
spirit.  Such  writers,  regarded  as  a  class,  decline, 
with  an  energy  hardly  less  than  vehement,  to  speak 
of  the  Bible  as  "  the  Word  of  God,"  yet,  happily, 
they  are  equally  emphatic  and  fervid  in  declaring 
that  in  ancient  times  the  Word  of  God  came  to  indi- 
vidual prophets  and  suppliants,  and  that  a  record  of 
the  communication  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  The 
writers  in  question  go  much  farther  than  this,  their 
urgent  contention  being  that  the  Word  of  God  not 

13 


14  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

only  came,  but  that  it  comes,  is  coming,  has  always 
been  coming,  and  that  as  a  gracious  necessity  of 
spiritual  progress  it  will  always  come  to  living  and 
h->ly  souls.  It  is  important,  even  at  the  risk  of  ver- 
bal tediousness,  to  make  this  clear,  because,  differ 
from  them  or  agree  with  them,  we  are  dealing  with 
friends  and  allies  who  are  spending  their  lives  in  the 
exposition  and  propagation  of  their  own  view  of  "  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  and  whose  holy  zeal  warms 
and  stimulates  the  whole  action  of  the  Christian 
Church.  We  are  dealing  with  brethren,  not  with 
enemies,  with  believers,  not  with  infidels,  and  with 
men  whose  conception  of  the  case  may  some  day 
prove  itself  to  be  right.  It  is  a  worthless  orthodoxy 
that  cannot  stand  the  test  of  all  fair  criticism,  and  it 
must  be  a  superstitious  and  faithless  faith  that  con- 
ceals its  credentials  in  fear  of  their  possible  invalida- 
tion. On  all  sides  of  these  great  inquiries  we  are  in 
quest  of  truth.  We  want  to  get  down  to  the  rock 
of  reality.  We  desire,  however  much  we  may  be 
unable  to  agree  in  intellectual  opinions,  to  realize  the 
presence  of  that  Blessed  Paraclete— God  the  Holy 
Ghost — whose  office  it  is  to  guide  the  meek  and  the 
faithful  into  all  truth.     The  brethren  whose  theory 


THE   WORD   OF  GOD. 


15 


I   am   about   to   consider,   and   in   parts   strongly   to 
oppose,  are  of  opinion  that  no  little  harm  has  been 
done  to  the  Bible  itself  by  claiming  that  as  a  book  it 
is  "  the  Word  of  God."     They  wish  the  Bible  to  be 
properly  defined.     They  regard  it  not  as  being  but 
as  containing  the  Word  of  God.     They  are  not  afraid 
to  say  that  the  Bible  as  a  book  abounds  in  errors, 
that  some  of  the  authorships  are  nominally  fictitious, 
that  many  of  its  dates  are  incorrect,  that  some  of  its 
books  are  of  composite  and  not  of  individual  author- 
ship, that  Moses  may  have  written  little  or  none  of 
the  books  which  bear  his  name,  and  that  David  may 
never  have  heard   of  the  Psalms  which  are  ascribed 
to  his  harp  and  pen.     Yet  they  claim  that  humble 
and  obedient  souls  may  find  "  the  Word  of  God  "  in 
the  Bible,  but  not  in  the  Bible  alone,  for  that  Word, 
they  say,  comes  to  men  every  day  as  a  distinct  and 
direct  message  from  God.      Every  day  brings  its  own 
message.      That    may   be    so.      Certainly    this    view 
does  not  discredit  or  limit  inspiration.      On  the  con- 
trary,  it  insists  upon  the  fact  and  worthily  magnifies 
its  value.      But  the  view  must   not  be   regarded  as 
original.      It  must  not  be  supposed  that  some  man 
discovered  it  yesterday.     It  is  a  view  for  which  other 


1 6  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

men  have  suffered.  Young  men  are  now  gaining 
applause  for  saying  that  for  which  older  men  suffered 
social  and  professional  martyrdom.  The  least  such 
young  men  can  do  is  to  acknowledge  the  wisdom 
and  courage  of  their  forerunners.  In  discrediting  the 
value  of  second-hand  learning  we  should  take  great 
pains  to  escape  the  humiliation  of  second-hand  orig- 
inality.    Gratitude  never  disgraces  Genius. 

It  has  been  said  by  writers  whose  view  I  am  about 
to  consider  that  the  Bible  itself  nowhere  claims  to  be 
"  the  Word  of  God."  Very  much  is  made  of  this 
point.  It  is  said  there  is  no  foundation  in  the  Bible 
itself  for  the  common  practice  of  speaking  of  it  as 
the  Word  of  God.  "Boldly  challenge  those  who 
thoughtlessly  employ  the  term."  Who  are  they?  I 
would  first  inquire.  The  word  "  thoughtlessly  "  sets 
up  a  prejudice.  It  is  misplaced.  Having  regard  to 
the  whole  history  of  the  Church,  it  may  be  unjust 
and  impertinent,  certainly  it  cannot  assist  in  the  elu- 
cidation of  the  argument.  A  man  is  not  necessarily 
"  thoughtless  "  because  he  differs  from  me.  He  may 
be  only  modifying  my  omniscience.  If  the  Bible 
nowhere  claims  to  be  "  the  Word  of  God,"  and  if  the 


THE   WORD   OF  GOD.  I  J 

absence  of  a  claim  is  equivalent  to  the  absence  of  a 
right,  we  must  carefully  consider  the  issues.  Sup- 
pose the  Bible  does  not  claim  to  be  the  Word  of 
God,  what  then  ?  Is  it  not,  therefore,  the  Word  of 
God  ?  May  it  not  be  all  the  more  the  Word  of  God 
on  that  very  account?  Does  the  Bible  ever  claim  to 
be  a  book  at  all  ?  Then  it  is  not  a  book.  Does  the 
Bible  ever  claim  to  be  a  unit?  Then  it  is  not  a  unit. 
If  the  Bible  is  only  what  it  claims  to  be,  then  what 
is  it?  Does  it  make  any  claim?  Is  it,  to  speak 
figuratively,  at  all  conscious  of  its  own  existence? 
Besides,  if  inspiration  comes  daily,  if  it  is  always  with 
us,  if  "  we  may  find  truth  flowing  toward  us  like  the 
dayspring  from  the  dewy  eyelids  of  the  morning,"  if 
all  this  is  really  a  fact,  who  is  able  to  say  that  inspi- 
ration may  not  be  retrospective  as  well  as  prospect- 
ive ?  That  it  may  not  claim  for  the  Bible  what  the 
Bible  does  not  formally  claim  for  itself?  That  it 
may  not  inspire  its  readers  as  certainly  as  it  inspired 
its  writers?  It  is  not  for  us  to  dogmatize.  Possibly 
God  may  interpret  the  past  as  surely  as  he  may  re- 
veal the  future.  It  was  precisely  in  this  way  that 
Jesus  Christ  dealt  with  his  disciples.  He  took  them 
back  upon  the  old  records.     He  showed  what  Moses 


1 8  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

meant  in  a  way  which  Moses  probably  never  knew 
or  understood.  So  it  is  just  possible,  for  manifold  is 
God's  counsel  and  his  paths  are  in  the  great  deep, 
that  he  may  have  put  it  into  the  hearts  of  his  people 
to  speak  of  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God. 

There  are  some  rights  which  do  not  require  to 
be  formally  "  claimed."  They  wait  for  recognition. 
They  are  self- revealing;  they  establish  themselves 
little  by  little ;  they  grow,  so  to  say,  like  reason  and 
conscience  and  sense  of  responsibility.  I  am  speak- 
ing of  the  mere  matter  of  "  claim,"  and  inquiring 
what  it  amounts  to  as  an  argument.  I  suggest  that 
it  may  amount  to  nothing.  Shakespeare  may  or 
may  not  claim  to  be  a  poet.  The  mere  matter  of 
claim  is  frivolous.  Sometimes  the  claim  may  have 
to  be  set  up  by  the  observer.  We  come  upon  some 
conceptions  unexpectedly  and  suddenly,  as  when  the 
startled  dreamer  said,  "  Surely  the  Lord  is  in  this 
place,  and  I  knew  it  not."  There  was  no  finger-post 
at  Haran  pointing  out  the  road  to  a  sanctuary  and 
setting  up  a  claim,  yet  Jacob  found  "  a  certain  place  " 
concerning  which  he  exclaimed,  "  How  dreadful  is 
this  place!  this  is  none  other  but  the  house  of  God, 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  19 

and  this  is  the  gate  of  heaven."  Between  the  even- 
ing star  and  the  morning  star  there  was  a  pregnant 
dream.  A  cloud  rich  with  visions  enswathed  the 
sleeper's  head,  and  a  still,  small  voicev  unknown  to 
the  vulgarity  of  sound,  thrilled  the  dreamer's  soul 
like  a  whisper  from  Eternity,  and  the  environment 
was  changed  in  all  its  significance.  Who  can  say 
that  inspiration  coming  down  from  heaven  to-day 
may  not  have  shown  holy  men  by  what  name  to 
name  writings  seemingly  scattered,  chaotic,  and  un- 
related? A  man  may  not  claim  to  be  great,  yet  he 
may  be  the  greater  on  that  account.  Some  men  are 
not  known  until  they  die.  Their  claim  is  set  up  by 
posterity.  "  That  which  thou  sowest  is  not  quick- 
ened except  it  die."  The  crown  comes  after  Cal- 
vary. A  place  may  lay  no  claim  to  consecration, 
yet  it  may  affect  us  like  a  sanctuary  of  the  Presence, 
a  Zion  inhabited  of  God.  The  Bible  cannot  live 
upon  testimonials,  or  "claims,"  or  official  sanctions; 
it  can  only  live  by  such  a  supremacy  of  influence  as 
entitles  it  to  the  faith,  the  love,  and  the  veneration 
of  the  world.  If  it  has  exercised  that  influence — 
account  for  it  variously  as  we  may — that  influence  is 
the  Bible's  best  claim.     It  is  not  a  formal  claim.     It 


20  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

is  a  claim  that  had  to  be  discovered.  The  pearl  had 
to  be  dug  for,  but  it  was  there  before  the  spade  cut 
the  concealing  sod.  So  the  true  meaning  of  God 
may  have  to  be  discovered  in  the  Bible.  One  man 
discovered  gravitation,  and  named  it;  another  may 
discover  inspiration,  and  connect  it  with  the  Holiest 
Name.  My  own  irfquiry  as  a  Bible  reader  is  not, 
What  did  the  prophet  mean?  but,  What  did  the  Holy 
Ghost  mean  when  he  spake  through  the  prophet? 
The  prophet  is  dead ;  the  Spirit  lives,  and  he  must 
be  his  own  interpreter, 

Carefully  observe  that  at  this  moment  I  am  speak- 
ing only  of  "  claim,"  of  which  so  much  is  made. 
There  may  be  no  formal  claim,  no  scholastic  claim, 
no  legal  claim,  yet,  seeing  that  inspiration  may  be 
retrospective  as  well  as  prospective,  it  is  surely  open 
to  us  to  inquire  whether  the  inspiration,  about  whose 
present-day  action  some  men  have  not  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt,  may  not  have  guided  other  minds  to  a 
correct  appreciation  of  the  Bible.  It  is  said  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Word  of  God.  But  those  who 
say  so  must  not  flinch  from  the  application  of  their 
own  test.     Let  us  therefore  reverently  ask,  When  did 


THE  IVORD  OF  GOD.  21 

Jesus  Christ  himself  ever  claim  to  be  the  Word  of 
God  ?  I  do  not  ask  what  other  men  claimed  for  him. 
Nor  do  I  ask  what  other  men  saw  him  to  be  in  vision 
or  in  ecstasy.  I  confine  my  attention  to  the  fourfold 
life  of  Christ  given  in  the  New  Testament,  and  I  ask 
not  what  John  said  about  Christ,  but  what  Christ  said 
about  himself.  Where  did  he  specifically  and  une- 
quivocally claim  to  be  the  Word  of  God  ?  As  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  some  highly  trained  men  have  thrown 
doubts  upon  its  authorship,  and  John  Stuart  Mill — 
certainly  not  "  a  man  of  one  book  " — quotes  the 
Fourth  Gospel  as  an  illustration  of  what  he  means  by 
foisting  upon  Christ  words  that  Christ  never  uttered. 
Hear  Mill's  testimony : 

"  What  could  be  added  and  in- 
terpolated by  a  disciple  we  may  see 
in  the  mystical  parts  of  the  Gospel 
of  John,  matter  imported  from  Philo 
and  the  Alexandrian  Platonists  and 
put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Saviour 
in  long  speeches  about  himself  such 
as  the  other  Gospels  contain  not 
the  slightest  vestige  of,  though  pre- 
tended to  have  been  delivered  on 
occasions  of  the  deepest  interest, 
and  when  his  principal  followers 
were  all  present."  l 

1  "Theism,"  p.  254. 


22 


NONE  LIKE  IT. 


That  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Word  of  God,  some 
persons  who  deny  his  deity  might  have  no  difficulty 
in  admitting.  Perhaps  that  is  the  very  title  by  which 
they  would  be  most  ready  to  distinguish  him.  To 
myself  Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  the  Word  of  God,  he 
is  God  the  Word.  But  where  did  he  claim  to  be  this 
in  a  way  so  direct  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
any  other  view  being  taken  of  his  Personality  ?  Was 
it  where  he  grew  in  wisdom  ?  where  he  was  weary 
with  his  journey?  where  he  knew  not  the  hour  of  the 
Lord's  coming?  where  he  said,  "There  is  none  good 
but  God  "  ?  where  he  said,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  Many  persons,  who  cannot 
justly  be  accused  of  thoughtlessness,  have  regarded 
such  passages  as  indisputable  proof  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  simply  the  Word  of  God — the  message  of  God  to 
the  human  race,  God  translated  into  the  supremest 
expressions  of  excellence.  I  am  disposed  to  think  that 
the  very  process  by  which  the  Bible  is  turned  from 
being  the  Word  of  God  into  containing  the  Word  of 
God  might  for  the  selfsame  reason  and  without  the  loss 
of  one  degree  of  cogency  be  employed  in  an  attack 
upon  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  parallels  seem 
to  me  at  this  moment  to  be  exact.     Able  men  have 


THE   WORD   OF  GOD.  2$ 

asserted  that  Christ  never  made  any  claim  for  himself 
that  is  not  consistent  with  his  simply  being  perfect  in 
all  virtue,  the  sublimest  expression  of  divine  excel- 
lence. Influential  sects  have  built  themselves  upon 
this  very  doctrine.  Large  sums  of  money  have  been, 
and  still  are,  subscribed  to  maintain  it.  The  plea  is 
in  many  points  identical  with  the  reasons  given  for 
not  describing  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God.  It  is 
contended  that  if  we  hand  the  Bible  to  men  as  the 
Word  of  God  they  will  instantly  point  to  passages 
which  describe  God  as  cruel  and  jealous  and  vindic- 
tive in  disproof  of  our  doctrine.  But  that  is  exactly 
what  other  men  do  when  we  declare  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  God  the  Son !  At  once  they  point  us  to  his  weak- 
ness, his  weariness,  his  confessed  ignorance,  his  neces- 
sities, his  prayers,  his  declaration  that  his  Father  was 
greater  than  he,  and  they  demand  how  we  can  recon- 
cile such  facts  and  statements  with  our  belief  in  his 
deity.  In  that  deity  we  do  believe,  and  we  do  not 
deny  the  perfect  humanity  of  our  Lord.  I  do  not  asl 
what  "  claim  "  Jesus  Christ  made  for  himself.  Theu- 
das  (Acts  v.  36)  " boasted  himself  to  be  somebody" 
yet  "all,  as  many  as  obeyed  him,  were  scattered,  and 
brought  to  naught."     Simon  (Acts  viii.  9)  "  gave  out 


24  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

that  himself  was  some  great  one,"  yet  his  name  has 
become  the  signal  of  the  deepest  infamy.  I  do  not 
set  store  upon  mere  "  claim."  History  has  given  us 
too  much  reason  to  suspect  it.  I  study  Christ  him- 
self, his  words,  his  ways,  his  thoughts,  his  deeds,  and 
thus  I  am  led  to  exclaim,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God." 

The  way  in  which  the  case  has  been  stated  by 
friends  on  what  I  may  call  the  other  side  indicates 
the  point  of  what  may  prove  to  be  their  error.  Con- 
densed, it  is  this:  "  Tell  men  that  the  Bible  is  the 
inspired  Word  of  God,  and  they  will  instantly  find 
such  and  such  objection."  So  they  may;  but  that 
is  precisely  what  we  refrain  from  doing.  Speaking 
for  myself,  lest  I  should  load  others  with  responsibil- 
ity, I  never  begin  by  giving  the  Bible  a  reputation. 
I  simply  say,  "Read  it;  read  it  all;  read  it  with  as 
little  interruption  as  possible,  then  tell  me  what  you 
think  of  it."  I  thus  leave  the  Bible  to  do  its  own 
work.  You  could  ruin  any  preacher,  poet,  musician, 
or  artist,  by  giving  a  romantic  description  of  him  be- 
fore he  had  an  opportunity  of  showing  his  own  qual- 
ity in  his  own  way.  Much  better  say,  Hear  him, 
study  him,  get  the  key  of  his  method,  and  then  form 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  25 

your  own  opinion  about  him.  That  is  all  I  ask  for 
the  Bible,  or  for  the  Redeeming  Lord  himself,  and  I 
thankfully  add  that  I  never  knew  that  method  fail. 

As  for  defining  what  is  meant  by  "  the  Word  of 
God,"  we  must  remember  that  there  is  no  final  defi- 
nition. No  man  can  define  God,  or  Truth,  or  Life, 
or  Love.  They  are  original  and  indefinable  terms. 
We  know  many  things  without  being  able  to  define 
them.  Consciousness  is  larger  than  formal  intel- 
ligence. It  is  possible  to  intellectualize  religious 
thought  and  to  reduce  it  to  a  species  of  literature — 
.that  is,  to  something  that  can  be  appraised  and  de- 
termined by  grammar  and  lexicon  and  criticism.  No 
wise  man  will  despise  any  part  of  this  literary  appa- 
ratus ;  at  the  same  time  the  apparatus  must  be  kept 
within  its  own  lines.  The  cry  for  definition  may 
easily  become  both  pedantic  and  frivolous.  In  all 
languages  there  are  expressions  which  are  symbolic 
rather  than  literal;  idioms  which  represent  our  ideal 
condition  or  aspiration  rather  than  words  which  can 
be  separated  from  one  another  and  parsed  independ- 
ently. In  the  higher  grammar  quite  a  cluster  of 
words  may  be  but  a  single  nominative.  The  phrase 
"  the-capital-of- England  "  may  be  but  one  hyphened 


26  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

word,  and  may  be  treated  not  as  an  article,  a  noun, 
and  a  preposition,  but  as  a  consolidated  substantive. 
When  we  speak  of  the  Bible  as  "  the  Word  of  God  " 
we  may  be  using  a  symbolic  idiom — an  idiom  which 
represents  the  supreme  purpose  of  the  Book — its 
vital  content  and  soul — in  a  sense  and  measure  which 
no  merely  literary  definition  can  fully  express.  It 
is  thus  that  the  Bible  may  be,  in  my  judgment,  and 
is,  in  my  practice,  more  fitly,  more  sensitively,  more 
truthfully,  described  by  the  thrilling  phrase  "the 
Word  of  God  "  than  by  any  alternative  designation. 
We  require  a  descriptive  which  is  exquisitely  nice, 
at  once  profound  and  delicate,  to  represent  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  Bible.  To  describe  the  Bible  as 
"  the  Word  of  God  "  is,  in  my  view,  to  describe  the 
Book  by  its  supreme  purpose,  which  purpose  is  the 
revelation  of  God  in  such  degree  and  proportion  as 
the  human  mind  is  able  to  receive  it.  If  I  must 
characterize  the  Bible  either  by  its  human  workman- 
ship or  its  divine  purpose — assuming  it  to  have  a 
divine  purpose — I  deliberately  elect  to  regard  it  as 
"the  Word  of  God."  In  making  this  election  I 
choose  the  less  of  two  difficulties.  I  cannot  escape 
mystery  in   receiving   the   Bible,  but  I   escape   the 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  2J 

greater  mystery  by  receiving  it  as  a  message  from 
God.  I  know  that  the  penmanship  is  human — I 
know  that  whatever  is  human  is  imperfect — yet  that 
does  not  affect  the  divine  purpose  except  in  the  sense 
that  the  limited  instrument  necessarily  modifies  the 
illimitable  music.  The  impassioned  pianist  crushes 
the  keys  and  strings  of  his  instrument  because  it  can 
only  tell  half  his  thought.  Embodiment  always 
means  contraction.  Incarnation  means  locality.  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  larger  than  its  parables,  though 
they  be  shaped  and  colored  by  the  King  himself. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  dealing  with  no 
less  a  theme  than  the  revelation  of  God.  How  to 
bring  it  into  words !  Eternity  is  incommoded  when 
endeavoring  to  typify  itself  upon  the  dial-space  of 
time.  It  is  the  culmination  of  irony.  The  Bible  is 
the  revelation  of  God — Ineffable — in  the  only  setting 
or  framework  possible  in  the  present  conditions  of 
life.  To  bring  God  into  language  is  to  bring  him 
within  limitations.  Words  are  constantly  trying  to 
define  themselves,  and  even  to  do  what  they  were 
never  meant  to  do.  Words  may  be  better  used 
when  simply  pointing  to  what  is  infinitely  greater 
than  themselves,  than  when  trying  to  say  everything 


28  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

exclusively  and  finally.  There  are  points  in  relig- 
ious thinking  at  which  reverent  and  adoring  silence 
must  supersede  impotent  definition.  Even  human 
history,  even  autobiography  itself,  must  suffer  from 
embodiment  in  any  one  set  of  terms.  The  verbal 
accommodation  is  too  small.  The  only  way  in  which 
national  or  personal  history  can  be  written,  under 
present  conditions,  is  the  way  of  one-sidedness, 
partiality,  incompleteness,  and  badly  lighted  color. 
Beyond  all  the  most  elaborate  and  balanced  expres- 
sion stands  in  silence  the  Motive,  the  Thought,  the 
Impulse,  the  quenchless  Immortality  for  which  there 
are  no  words — the  gold  of  thought,  which  cannot  be 
expressed  in  the  bronze  of  speech.  So  when  I  am 
challenged  to  define  the  phrase  "  the  Word  of  God  " 
I  am  not  ashamed  to  own  that  to  my  mind  the  phrase 
typifies  a  reality  which  it  is  impossible  fully  to  ex- 
press in  terms  which  would  not  themselves  require 
to  be  defined. 

Speaking  thus  of  the  claim  of  the  Bible  to  be  "  the 
Word  of  God,"  and  of  the  limits  of  verbal  and  spir- 
itual "  definition,"  we  are  reminded  of  a  method  of 
treating  the  Bible  which  is  known  as  °  dissection." 


THE   WORD   OF  GOD.  29 

My  present  feeling  is  that  the  method  of  dissection 
is  impossible.  But  is  not  the  Bible  a  piece  of  liter- 
ature? Only  in  a  very  limited  sense,  and  of  course 
within  that  limited  sense  it  is  open  to  partial  dissec- 
tion ;  but  from  my  point  of  view  the  Bible  is  infi- 
nitely more  than  a  piece  of  literature,  and  just  as  it 
becomes  more  it  passes  out  of  the  region  of  dissec- 
tion. We  can  dissect  literature,  but  can  we  dissect 
revelation  ?  We  can  dissect  the  body,  but  can  we 
dissect  the  life  ?  We  can  dissect  the  rose,  but  can 
we  dissect  its  fragrance?  What  is  called  the  dissec- 
tion of  the  Bible  is  not  undertaken  irreverently.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  claimed  that  the  botanist  dissects 
the  flower  because  he  loves  it.  I  think,  however, 
that  the  analogy  is  imperfect.  There  is  a  botanist's 
flower  and  there  is  a  poet's  flower.  A  mother  may 
view  her  infant's  body  in  one  way  and  an  anatomist 
may  view  it  in  another.  But  is  not  the  infant  an 
anatomical  structure  ?  Yes,  and  infinitely  more,  and 
in  that  glorious  "  more  "  the  technical  anatomist  has 
no  rights.  So  with  the  Bible.  It  is  literature  and  it 
is  revelation.  It  is  history  and  it  is  insight.  It  is 
discipline  and  it  is  holiness.  The  altar  can  be  meas- 
ured in  cubits,  but  the  sacrifice  which  is  offered  on  it 


30  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

is  a  magnitude  upon  which  no  measuring  rod  can  be 
laid.  Unless,  therefore,  the  term  "dissection"  be 
very  carefully  guarded  and  limited,  its  importance  as 
a  method  may  easily  become  exaggerated. 

Another  method  of  interpretation  is  not  free  from 
prejudice,  and  is  certainly  not  always  safe.  It  is  the 
capricious  method  of  testing  Scripture  by  what  is 
called  "experience."  Commenting  upon  a  difficult 
passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Mr.  Horton 
suggests  a  meaning,  and  adds :  "  If  the  generally 
accepted  interpretation  is  correct,  the  passage  must 
take  its  place  among  those  opinions  or  speculations 
on  divine  things  which  are  not  confirmed  by  expe- 
rience." Whose?  What  is  experience?  It  has 
been  defined  as  "  a  term  by  which  a  man  often  covers 
his  mistakes."  Is  God's  truth  no  larger  than  man's 
experience?  Compare  the  experience  of  to-day 
with  the  experience  of  the  twelfth  century  or  the 
seventeenth !  If  experience  is  limited  by  personal- 
ity, by  whose  personality  is  it  to  be  limited?  And 
if  limited,  what  is  the  value  of  it  beyond  the  limita- 
tion? And  if  any  interpretation,  truth,  doctrine,  or 
suggestion  lies  beyond  experience  to-day,  who  can 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  3  I 

be  confident  that  experience  will  not  or  may  not 
include  it  to-morrow?  I  venture,  then,  to  submit 
that  in  making  experience  a  final  test  we  are  appeal- 
ing to  a  capricious  and  insufficient  criterion. 

A  special  danger  arises  in  the  form  of  a  tempta- 
tion to  judge  the  part  out  of  its  relation  to  the  whole. 
I  have  been  enabled  to  regard  the  Bible  as  a  unit. 
I  know  it  is  a  collection  of  what  may  be  called  tracts 
or  pamphlets,  and  that  probably  no  one  writer  knew, 
or  in  many  instances  could  possibly  know,  what  the 
others  had  written.  Yet  to  my  view  the  Bible  is  a 
unit.  One  part  belongs  to  another.  One  part  ex- 
plains another.  This  is  indeed  very  marvelous,  con- 
sidering the  different  authorships,  the  different  dates, 
the  different  environments.  It  is  not  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  authors  must  have  been  moved  by  a  com- 
mon impulse,  and  must  have  been  building  a  common 
temple  without  knowing  it.  The  parts  of  the  temple 
come  together  most  wonderfully,  as  if  proportioned 
and  fitted  by  the  same  Architect.  So  wondrous  is 
the  effect  upon  my  own  mind  that  if  any  teacher 
should  explain  the  marvel  by  saying,  "  Holy  men  of 
old  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost," 
I  could  accept  the  solution,  my  reason,  my  imagina- 


32  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

tion,  and  my  heart  could  unite  in  exclaiming,  "  Lo! 
God  is  here,  and  I  knew  it  not;  this  is  none  other 
than  the  Word  of  God,  and  this  is  the  light  of 
heaven!"  Nor  am  I  to  be  troubled  by  having  my 
attention  called  to  the  real  or  supposed  defects  of 
certain  portions  of  the  Bible.  Can  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes,  say  some,  be  looked  upon  as  the  Word 
of  God  ?  look  at  its  materialism,  its  sensuousness,  its 
pessimism.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  part  of  a 
larger  book.  Its  pessimism  is  a  shadow  upon  a  land- 
scape. There  is  undoubtedly  a  pessimistic  side  of 
life,  and  I  am  glad  to  have  it  expressed  exactly  as 
it  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes.  The  Bible 
would  have  been  incomplete  without  it.  If  it  were 
the  whole  Bible,  it  would  cover  the  soul  with  deep 
darkness ;  but  as  part  of  the  Bible  it  is  true  to  human 
experience,  and  the  very  recognition  of  it  is  itself  an 
encouragement  to  faith  and  hope.  Others  say,  Can 
the  Book  of  Esther  be  part  of  the  Word  of  God  when 
the  name  of  God  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  in  it? 
For  my  own  part  I  can  see  little  but  God  in  the  main 
action  of  that  tragedy.  God  does  sometimes  gov- 
ern anonymously.  To  me  it  is  not  an  unacceptable 
conception  that  sometimes  the  light  is  reflex  rather 


THE   IVORD   OF  GOD.  33 

than  direct,  and  that  in  reading  some  histories  the  in- 
fluence is  more  obvious  than  the  personality.  The  one 
thought  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  this  connection  is 
that  the  Bible  having  been  made  into  a  unit  is  to  be 
judged  in  its  unity  even  in  the  very  act  of  consider- 
ing its  parts.  Books  which  may  be  difficulties  when 
torn  out  of  their  setting  may  assume  new  color  and 
meaning  when  regarded  in  their  relation  to  an  or- 
ganic whole.  So  also  with  texts,  separate  verses, 
and  special  commandments  which  are  supposed  to 
present  such  stumbling-blocks  to  that  sensitive  creat- 
ure, that  highly  wrought  and  delicately  constructed 
machine,  the  infidel.  Some  teachers  are  painfully 
careful  of  his  feelings.  He  is  most  sensitive.  When 
he  hears  that  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion, he  faints.  When  he  is  told  that  the  Canaanites 
and  other  persons  in  wrhose  feelings  and  sufferings 
he  is  deeply  interested  were  driven  out  of  the  land 
with  great  slaughter  and  loss,  he  is  overpowered. 
When  he  comes  to  passages  which  seem  to  direct 
that  the  heads  of  little  ones  are  to  be  dashed  against 
the  stones,  he  simply  lays  down  the  Bible  in  horror 
and  becomes  a  larger  infidel  than  ever.     Yet,  after 


34 


NONE  LIKE  IT. 


all,  and  speaking  with  trembling  deference,  even  an 
infidel  may  occasionally  be  wrong.  Yet  in  what 
white-faced  awe  we  stand  before  him !  How  anx- 
ious the  commentators  are  to  explain  verse  thirty- 
six  to  him  in  a  way  that  will  soothe  his  exasperated 
feelings!  How  deeply  anxious  the  preachers  are  so 
to  explain  the  Almighty  that  the  dear  and  sensitive 
infidel  may  take  a  more  lenient  and  hopeful  view  of 
the  general  way  in  which  the  universe  is  managed  as 
a  whole.  For  my  part  I  will  not  make  an  idol  of  an 
infidel.  Again  and  again  I  would  say,  notwithstand- 
ing the  apparently  impious  audacity  of  the  assertion, 
that  even  an  infidel  may  sometimes  be  wrong.  I  can 
at  least  imagine  it  possible  that  in  the  final  audit  the 
Bible  writers  may  have  seen  farther  than  some  who 
are  shocked  by  their  statements.  Evils  do  run  out 
their  consequences  to  the  third  and  the  fourth  gen- 
eration. Nations  are  as  a  matter  of  fact  displaced 
and  replaced  in  a  mysterious  way.  Even  little  chil- 
dren are  dashed  against  the  stones.  If  these  facts 
be  degraded  into  mere  anecdotes,  they  are  made 
horrible  by  first  being  made  contemptible ;  but  set  in 
their  right  atmosphere,  thrown  into  their  true  per- 
spective amid   the  ever-coming  and  ever-vanishing 


THE  WORD   OF  GOD.  35 

centuries,  read  in  the  larger  light — even  in  God's 
high  noon — who  knows  but  that  it  may  yet  be 
proved  that  it  was  the  infidel  who  was  wrong  ?  The 
dear  and  sensitive  infidel  cannot  receive  the  Bible 
because  of  verse  seventy-nine  ;  then  why  should  I  re- 
ceive the  world  when  I  am  first  invited  to  believe  that 
there  is  a  devil?  I  am  shocked  by  the  suggestion. 
Every  nerve  quivers  with  agony  at  the  very  thought. 
Yet  my  infidelity  does  not  destroy  the  devil.  I  can 
sooner  destroy  him  by  my  faith  than  by  my  unbelief. 
My  faith  enables  me  to  realize  that  the  devil  and  all 
his  angels  are  the  chained  slaves  of  the  Eternal 
Throne. 

The  phrase  "  the  Word  of  God  "  (whatever  it  may 
precisely  include)  is  one  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  Bible  itself.  It  might  be  supposed  from  reading 
some  writings  that  this  phrase  is  quite  a  modern 
invention — a  "  thoughtless,"  "  loose,"  "  misleading  " 
expression.  The  phrase  occurs  in  all  varieties  of 
form  in  the  Bible.  I  claim  for  it  that  it  is  a  Bible 
term.  Whatever  may  be  its  meaning,  it  does  in  in- 
numerable instances  occur  in  the  Book  itself.  Per- 
haps, therefore,  it  has  a  meaning.     At  all  events,  it 


36  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

is  of  importance  thoroughly  to  impress  the  mind  with 
the  fact  that  the  phrase  "  the  Word  of  God  "  or  "the 
Word  of  the  Lord  "  is  certainly  as  old  as  the  Bible. 
Thus: 

"The  word  of  God  came  to"; 
"  the  word  of  our  God  shall  stand 
forever";  "making  the  word  of 
God  of  none  effect  "  ;  "  the  people 
pressed  on  him  to  hear  the  word 
of  God";  "the  seed  is  the  word 
of  God";  "the  Gentiles  received 
the  word  of  God";  "so  mightily 
grew  the  word  of  God  and  pre- 
vailed" ;  "  many  corrupt  the  word 
of  God";  "handling  the  word  of 
God  deceitfully";  "the  sword  of 
the  Spirit  which  is  the  word  of 
God  "  ;  "  the  word  of  God  is  quick 
and  powerful";  "it  is  not  meet 
that  we  should  leave  the  word  of 
God." 

These  are  only  samples  of  an  almost  countless 
number.  The  apostle  Peter  speaks  very  definitely 
about  the  word  of  the  Lord.  He  says,  "  The  word 
of  the  Lord  endureth  forever,"  and  as  if  anticipating 
our  modern  inquiry,  What  is  the  Word  of  the  Lord? 
he  answers—"  And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the 
gospel  is  preached  unto  you"  (i  Peter  i.  25).  We 
are  justified,  then,  in  saying  that  the  expression  "  the 


THE  WORD  OF  COD.  37 

Word  of  God,"  whatever  it  may  precisely  mean,  is 
intensely  biblical.  The  answer  which  is  given  to  us 
is  that  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  about  this, 
the  contention  is  that  the  expression  is  never  applied 
in  the  Bible  itself  to  the  Bible  itself — in  other  words, 
the  Bible  nowhere  calls  itself  by  that  name.  So  we 
return  to  our  first  ground,  By  what  name  does  the 
Bible  describe  itself?  Does  it  ever  describe  itself? 
Because  it  does  not  describe  itself,  may  its  readers 
never  describe  it?  Some  teachers  suppose  that  they 
have  met  the  case  by  describing  the  Bible  as  "  a 
record."  The  term  "  record  "  is  in  great  favor  with 
them.  But  a  "  record  "  of  what?  Surely  more  than 
a  record  of  names,  births,  ages,  wars,  migrations,  and 
anecdotes?  These  may  properly  come  under  such 
a  designation  as  "  record."  They  can  be  fully  and 
literally  set  down,  registered,  attested,  and  otherwise 
treated  as  events  having  a  beginning  and  an  end. 
But  is  there  nothing  more  in  the  Bible?  What  is 
that  something  more?  Is  there  not  something  more 
in  Moses  than  Moses  ever  dreamed  ?  Why  have  a 
Bible  at  all,  except  as  we  may  have  other  so-called 
sacred  books  which  may  be  interesting  memorials  of 
ancient  and  perhaps  exhausted  nationalities?     What 


38  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

is  it  that  gives  the  Bible  its  uniqueness?  That  is 
the  quality  which  I  wish  to  get  at  and  appreciate. 
Now  tell  me  distinctly,  if  you  can,  what  that  quality 
is.  When  I  have  beyond  all  doubt  discovered  that 
quality,  I  can  have  no  difficulty  in  making  a  definite 
claim  for  the  Bible.  Is  there  anything  in  the  Bible 
of  the  nature  of  prophecy,  communion,  fellowship 
with  God,  insight,  motive — anything  about  or  bear- 
ing upon  prayer,  eternity,  sanctification,  election, 
trust,  destiny — anything  that  goes  infinitely  beyond 
records,  schedules,  registers,  and  genealogies — any- 
thing that  takes  in  all  the  centuries  and  gathers  up 
human  history  into  a  unit?  What  is  the  supreme 
purpose  of  the  Book?  Does  the  Book  anywhere 
claim  to  have  a  supreme  purpose  ?  If  it  has  not  a 
supreme  purpose,  why  was  it  collated  and  published? 
If  its  supreme  purpose,  claimed  or  unclaimed,  is  the 
revelation  of  God  to  the  world,  I  have  no  difficulty 
in  regarding  it  as  the  inclusive  and  authoritative 
Word  of  God.  One  writer  does  give  an  answer  to 
the  question,  What  is  the  Bible?  He  says,  "It  is, 
to  put  it  briefly,  the  sacred  and  inspired  record  of 
the  Word  of  God,"  etc.  He  calls  the  Bible  "the 
canon  of  sacred  Scripture."     Now  where  does  the 


THE  IVORD   OF  GOD.  39 

Bible  claim  to  be  a  canon  ?  Does  the  word  "  canon  " 
ever  occur  in  the  Bible?  And  by  what  authority 
does  the  writer  speak  of  "sacred  Scripture"?  How 
often  does  the  word  "sacred"  occur  in  the  Bible? 
Is  the  word  "  sacred  "  in  the  Bible  at  all  ?  Is  it  not 
an  ecclesiastical  word  ?  Is  it  not  in  its  very  face  and 
form  a  priest's  word?  When  I  am  "boldly  chal- 
lenged" as  to  the  ground  on  which  I  describe  the 
Bible  as  "  the  Word  of  God,"  I  in  my  turn  may 
"  boldly  challenge  "  the  challenger  to  give  me  his 
biblical  authority  for  calling  the  Bible  a  canon,  or 
calling  the  Bible  "sacred  Scripture." 

The  Christian  Church  should  welcome  all  the  light 
and  aid  of  the  best  scholarship  in  the  elucidation  of 
the  Bible.  There  is  no  orthodoxy  so  despicable  as 
that  which  sneers  at  scholarship.  I  want  all  the  help 
I  can  get  in  endeavoring  to  make  out  the  purpose 
and  meaning  of  the  Bible.  If  the  Bible  as  a  whole 
is  not  the  Word  of  God,  I  wish  to  know  it.  Super- 
stition is  mischievous.  Prejudice  hurts  the  soul. 
Do  let  us  encourage  reverent  and  competent  scholars 
to  dig  deeply  and  speak  fearlessly.  It  is  in  this  spirit 
that  I  am  about  to  make  a  revolutionary  suggestion. 


40  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Why  not  re-edit  and  reconstruct  the  canon  in  the 
light  of  present-day  knowledge?  The  form  might 
be  changed ;  the  substance  would  remain.  The  for- 
mation of  the  canon  was  a  human  work.  The  Bible 
as  we  have  it  was  never  seen  either  by  the  proph- 
ets or  the  apostles.  If  the  best  scholarship  of  the 
Church  is  prepared  to  prove  that  there  are  literal, 
historical,  chronological  errors  in  the  Bible,  why  not 
cut  them  out?  Why  not  publish  a  revised  canon  as 
well  as  a  revised  version  ?  If  you  meddle  with  the 
human  side  of  the  Bible  at  all,  why  not  meddle  with 
it  thoroughly?  I  venture  to  think  that  this  would 
be  turning  orthodox  scholarship  to  the  best  use.  It 
is  high  time  we  got  rid  of  all  false  traditions.  I 
would  not  spare  them  on  the  ground  of  their  age, 
I  would  abolish  them  on  the  ground  of  their  unfaith- 
fulness. Do  let  us,  I  repeat,  get  down  as  far  as  pos- 
sible to  the  rock  of  reality.  If  "  the  early  Fathers 
took  over  from  the  rabbis  a  collection  of  baseless 
theories,"  let  us  get  rid  of  them.  If  "  the  only  evi- 
dence in  support  of  their  claims  is  found  in  the  tra- 
ditions themselves,"  let  us  plainly  denominate  them 
false  witnesses.  If  "  Canticles  and  Ecclesiastes  are 
not  Solomonic  but  post-exilic,"  reconstruct  the  canon 


THE  WORD   OF  GOD.  41 

accordingly.  We  may  correct  a  date  without  dis- 
turbing a  morality.  Scholars  will,  of  course,  be  very 
sure  of  their  ground  before  they  rearrange  the 
canon,  but  being  sure  of  it  they  should  take  a  defi- 
nite course,  stopping  at  the  point  where  their  knowl- 
edge ceases.  If  we  know  the  errors  before  sending 
out  the  Book,  why  not  keep  back  the  Book  until  we 
have  corrected  the  errors?  I  press  the  inquiry.  If 
we  cannot  re-edit  the  whole,  why  not  re-edit  a  part? 
Why  not  undertake  the  work  within  the  lines  of  the 
Hexateuch  ?  Why  shrink  from  re-dating  and  re- 
signing the  Psalms  ?  I  press  the  inquiry  in  the  hope 
that  the  answer  will  be  that  the  task  is  in  the  main 
impossible.  Probably  the  answer  will  be  that  the 
truth  and  the  error,  the  factual  and  the  moral,  the 
local  and  the  universal,  are  so  intermixed  that  useful 
separation  cannot  be  effected.  That  would  be  an 
important  admission,  because — 

First :  It  would  help  to 
show  that  Revelation  is 
given  within  the  only 
setting  or  framework 
which  is  possible — faulty 


42  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

because  of  human  infirm- 
ity :  incomplete  because 
of  human  imperfection — 
and 

Secondly:  That,  there- 
fore, we  now  have  in  the 
Bible  the  only  framework 
of  revelation  that  can 
substantially  represent  the 
many  centuries  of  evolu- 
tion and  growth  through 
which  biblical  history  has 
passed. 

What  if  the  canon  itself  cannot  be  substantially 
amended?  Who  knows  how  far  divine  inspiration 
may  have  directed  its  contents  and  construction? 
If  there  is  a  perpetual  inspiration,  who  can  say  with 
definiteness  and  authority  that  when  wise  and  holy 
men  undertook  to  build  the  temple  of  the  Bible 
they  were  forsaken  of  God  ? 


II. 

THE   PERMANENT   QUANTITY. 

THERE  is  a  permanent  quantity  in  the  Bible 
about  whose  inspiration  the  Christian  Church  is 
substantially  agreed.  Probably  we  shall  never  have  a 
definition  of  inspiration  which  does  not  itself  need  to 
be  defined.  By  inspiration  I  mean  a  statement,  doc- 
trine, message,  or  discipline,  which  separates  itself 
from  all  ordinary  thinking,  which  so  far  separates 
itself  as  to  throw  ordinary  thinking  into  obvious 
contrast,  and  which  associates  itself  with  such  a 
quality  of  moral  discipline  as  to  exclude  the  idea 
that  itself  can  be  the  fantasy  of  a  wanton  imagina- 
tion. I  lay  much  stress  upon  the  quality  of  the  dis- 
cipline ;  it  is  not  mere  pain ;  it  is  not  a  trick  of  van- 
ity ;  it  is  not  a  sordid  spectacle  set  up  for  sordid 
uses:  on  the  contrary,  it  searches  the  heart;  it  puri- 
fies the  motive ;  it  abases  and  chastens  the  imagina- 

43 


44  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

tion  ;  and,  above  all,  it  creates  a  desire  and  a  yearning 
for  the  good  of  others  all  the  world  over  akin  to  the 
love  which  created  the  cross.  This  conception  of 
inspiration  enables  me  to  accept  the  Bible,  correctly 
translated  into  English,  as  the  Word  of  God.  The 
Bible  addresses  itself  to  the  greatest  subjects — Crea- 
tion, Providence,  Redemption,  Sanctification,  Des- 
tiny. Upon  all  these  subjects  its  tone  is  dogmatic, 
solemn,  impressive.  The  conceptions  of  the  Bible 
are  as  large  as  its  subjects.  It  guesses  nothing,  pos- 
tulates nothing,  apologizes  for  nothing.  We  may 
apologize  for  the  Bible :  the  Bible  never  apologizes 
for  itself.  All  this  would  be  incomplete,  and  as  evi- 
dence would  be  only  partial  (at  best  suggestive  and 
inferential),  but  for  that  peculiar  quality  of  discipline 
upon  which  the  Bible  inexorably  insists.  The  Bible 
makes  no  bid  for  popularity.  It  risks  its  popularity 
by  its  severity.  It  does  not  ask  for  homage  based 
upon  concession.  It  does  not  approach  our  confi- 
dence through  the  medium  of  our  vanity.  It  takes 
us  back  to  our  ignorance,  our  weakness,  and  our 
shame,  that  it  may  take  us  forward  to  God's  wisdom, 
Christ's  almightiness,  and  the  Spirit's  miracle  of  holi- 
ness.    Thus  the  Bible  is  not  only  a  sublime  revela- 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  45 

tion  of  God,  it  is  also  a  penetrating  and  sanctifying 
discipline  of  man ;  and  because  of  this  double  action 
— this  complete  and  effective  ministry — I  have  no 
scruple  in  speaking  of  the  Bible  as  "  the  Word  of 
God,"  founding  that  title  not  upon  anything  claimed 
by  the  Bible  for  itself,  but  upon  its  supreme  content 
and  purpose.  If  the  Bible  were  not  the  Word  of 
God,  or  if  the  title  "  the  Word  of  God  "  were  a  blas- 
phemy or  even  a  vital  mistake,  I  think  that,  having 
regard  to  its  own  limitation  and  its  special  purpose, 
it  would  have  warned  me  against  making  an  idol  of 
it,  and  would  have  said,  "  See  thou  do  it  not,  for  I 
am  only  a  record  of  a  progressive  revelation,  and  I 
abound  in  nearly  every  kind  of  error,  not  literal  only, 
but  moral  also."  If  I  had  the  faintest  scruple  as  to 
estimating  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  it  would  be 
dissolved  by  the  fact  that  the  Bible  constantly  seeks 
me  in  God's  name,  offers  me  God's  love,  welcomes 
me  to  God's  pardon,  and  constrains  me  to  obedience 
to  God's  will.  So  large,  so  tender,  is  the  Spirit  of 
this  wondrous  Book !  The  Bible  was  not  written  to 
tell  me  what  the  Jews  did,  but  to  tell  me  what  God 
did  through  the  Jews.  What  the  patriarchs  or  the 
Jews  did  three  thousand  years  ago  can  have  only  an 


46  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

archaeological  interest  for  me ;  but  the  moment  I  see 
the  divine  movement  or  the  divine  purpose  in  the 
Book  I  say,  "  I  will  turn  aside  and  see  this  great 
sight,"  how  in  so  small  a  space  I  can  see  the  genesis 
of  history  and  the  very  outline  of  God !  Under  the 
happy  influence  of  this  feeling  I  have  great  confi- 
dence and  intense  joy — even  if  without  technical  and 
formal  authority  from  the  Book  itself — in  prefacing 
the  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  with  the  solemn 
invitation,  "Let  us  read  the  Word  of  God."  An- 
other minister  would,  I  infer,  substitute  this  more 
discriminating  form,  if  he  used  any  form  at  all,  "  Let 
us  read  the  sacred  and  inspired  record  of  the  Word 
of  God."  If  it  came  to  a  question  of  internal  claim 
on  the  part  of  the  Bible  itself,  I  should  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  upholding  at  least  the  equality  of  the  sim- 
pler designation. 

What  is  the  permanent  quantity  that  is  in  the 
Bible — the  quantity,  in  fact,  without  which  there 
could  be  no  Bible  in  the  sense  in  which  we  under- 
stand that  term  ?  It  is,  compendiously,  the  revela- 
tion of  God;  it  is,  in  detail,  every  law  that  can  ben- 
eficially affect  the   condition  and  the  perfecting  of 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  47 

human  life — "  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteous- 
ness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  fur- 
nished completely  with  every  good  work."  It  is 
evident  that  the  man  who  wrote  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy  believed  that  some  Scripture,  somewhere, 
written  by  some  pens,  was  inspired ;  that  there  was 
some  writing  somewhere  which  he  regarded  as 
"  Holy  Scripture,"  and  that  such  Holy  Scripture 
undertook  the  whole  spiritual  culture  and  perfect- 
ing of  man.  Now  if  I  could  lay  my  hands  on  that 
Scripture,  and  if  I  believed  it  to  be  what  Paul  says 
it  was,  I  could  have  no  difficulty  in  regarding  it 
as  the  Word  of  God.  It  cannot  be  too  carefully 
marked  that  the  reference  is  to  something  written, 
and  therefore  something  that  could  be  read;  some- 
thing different  from  a  Personality,  yet  not  opposed 
to  it ;  a  writing,  a  pamphlet,  a  book  of  some  sort. 
In  the  present  inquiry  that  fact  is  of  vital  conse- 
quence. Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  written  book.  It 
is  with  a  written  form  that  this  inquiry  concerns 
itself.  You  cannot  substitute  the  word  "Christ"  for 
the  word  "Scriptures"  in  such  a  passage  as  this: 
"  Beginning  at  Moses,  he  expounded  unto  them  in 


48  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself." 
There  is  a  writing,  and  there  is  a  Christ.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Apostle  Paul  any  Scripture  which  is 
not  profitable— vitally  and  permanently  useful — for 
teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction  which  is  in 
righteousness,  which  does  not  complete  the  man  of 
God  and  furnish  him  unto  every  good  work,  cannot 
be  regarded  as  inspired,  and  every  Scripture  cover- 
ing and  fulfilling  this  ministry  may  be  accepted  as 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now  on  the  ground 
of  history  and  on  the  ground  of  personal  experience 
it  is  claimed  that  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it,  and  as  we 
translate  it  into  all  languages,  brings  men  to  God, 
makes  them  men  of  God,  fills  them  with  thoughts 
of  God,  and  creates  in  them  a  desire  to  be  holy  after 
the  manner  of  God,  and  because  it  does  this,  does  it 
openly  and  subtlely,  does  it  constantly  and  unexcep- 
tionally,  it  is  no  exaggeration  of  claim  to  represent 
it  as  "  the  Word  of  God."  Nor  can  we  so  re-edit 
the  Bible  as  to  say  with  definiteness  that  the  exclu- 
sion of  what  may  be  called  local  and  limited  history 
would  not  affect  the  parts  which  are  avowedly  moral, 
spiritual,  universal,  and  permanent.  The  Bible  is 
impregnated  through  and  through  with  one  infinite 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  49 

and  glorious  purpose.  Take  out  of  the  Bible  every 
passage  that  refers  to  God,  that  accounts  for  crea- 
tion, that  relates  to  man,  that  dwells  upon  Redemp- 
tion, Forgiveness,  Righteousness,  and  Sanctification, 
take  away  all  the  passages  bearing  upon  the  restora- 
tion and  comfort  of  the  human  heart,  the  purpose 
of  human  discipline,  the  subjugation  of  sin,  and  the 
salvation  of  the  world,  and  what  is  there  left?  So 
immensely  do  these  great  subjects  overshadow  all 
other  subjects,  and  so  exquisitely  do  their  several 
modes  of  treatment  constitute  one  noble  harmony, 
that  it  would  be  a  conscious  injustice  on  my  part — 
I  dare  not  speak  for  others — to  hesitate  to  pay  hom- 
age to  the  Bible  as  verily  and  abidingly  "  the  Word 
of  God." 

It  has  been  said  by  a  German  writer  that  the  dif- 
ference between  false  religions  and  true  religions  is 
that  the  one  has  documents  and  the  other  has  living 
prophets.  It  is  happily  the  distinction  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  that  it  has  both.  It  is  a  marvelous  com- 
bination of  the  ancient  and  the  modern.  From  my 
point  of  view  the  Bible  is  at  once  the  oldest  and  the 
newest  of  books.     I  have  found  it  safe  to  suspect 


50  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  newness  which  has  no  antiquity,  and  to  disre- 
gard the  antiquity  which  has  no  modern  applica- 
tions. Time  is  old,  but  every  summer  is  new.  The 
earth  is  old,  but  the  grass  withereth  and  the  flower 
fadeth.  When  the  flower  blooms  it  is  Eternity  smil- 
ing in  time.  Christianity  has  indeed  its  documents, 
the  individuality  of  each  entering  into  and  enriching 
the  individuality  of  the  whole.  Genesis  and  Job  are 
not  the  same  in  style,  but  it  is  the  same  man  who  is 
tempted,  the  same  devil  who  tempts,  the  same  God 
who  protects,  the  same  God  who  rules  the  issue. 
The  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  are  varied  enough  in  style  and  action,  yet 
there  is  something  within  the  whole  movement  and 
evolution  which  makes  them  hard  reading  for  atheism. 
So  wondrously  have  we  seen  Providence  working  in 
personal  experience  and  in  national  history,  that  it  is 
now  evident  that  men  may  be  working  in  different 
ages  and  different  countries,  in  total  ignorance  of 
each  other's  existence  and  labors,  and  yet  serving  a 
common  purpose  as  if  moved  by  a  common  impulse. 
There  may  not  be  so  much  difference  in  age  and 
country  and  language  and  environment,  as  we  some- 
times suppose,  or  within  all  the  accidental  difference 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  51 

there  may  be  an  invisible  link — even  that  wondrous 
line,  beyond  sight  and  touch,  which  stretches  "  from 
everlasting  to  everlasting."  The  atom  and  the  planet 
are  both  from  God — the  single  soul  and  the  consum- 
mated race. 

The  Christian  religion  has  documents.  To  one  test 
they  may  be  fairly  subjected.  Can  any  man  add 
one  true  line  to  the  moral  or  spiritual  code  which  is 
set  up  in  the  Bible  ?  Can  any  man  publish  an  ap- 
pendix of  omitted  morals?  Can  any  man  add  to 
the  tender  balms  and  solaces  provided  in  the  Bible 
for  broken  hearts  and  wounded  spirits?  We  have 
had  centuries  of  education — this  age  represents  the 
latest  wisdom  of  the  world — can  we,  with  such 
advantages,  add  a  solitary  tittle  to  those  Scriptures 
which  are  "  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for 
instruction  which  is  in  righteousness,  that  the  man 
of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished  completely  unto 
every  good  work  "?  That  is  a  fair  challenge.  It  is 
in  the  line  of  questions  which  are  asked  in  the  Bible 
itself.  God  challenges  the  deities  manufactured  in 
the  smithies  of  the  world.  He  says  that  no  man 
can  add  a  cubit  to  his  own  stature,  or  turn  one  hair 


52  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

black  or  white.      Can  man  enlarge  the  circumference 
of   the   earth   by   one   half   inch?     Why   not,   then, 
boldly  challenge  the  world  to  add  one  line  or  tint 
to  the  moral  excellence  of  the  Bible?    No  such  addi- 
tion has  been  made.     Variation,  illustration,  adapta- 
tion we  have  had  in  happy  abundance,  and  we  desire 
to  have  more  and  more,  but  to  the  integral  substance 
nothing  can   be  added.     Art   sits   before  the   same 
landscapes;     music    interprets    the    same    breezes; 
poetry  handles  the  same  harp ;  one  generation  pass- 
eth  away  and  another  generation  cometh,  but  thy 
throne,  O   God,  is   forever  and  ever.     Another  fair 
question  is,  If  the  moral  code  of  the  Bible  is  com- 
plete, how  is  that  completeness  to  be  accounted  for? 
Does  any  theory  so  thoroughly  satisfy  the  inquiry  as 
the  answer,  "  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost"?     That  answer  I  am 
able  to  accept  in  all  the  fullness  of  its  meaning  and 
so  to  regard  the  "  Holy  Scripture  "  as  indeed  and  in 
truth   "the   Word   of   God."     But    have   not   some 
beautiful  hymns  been  added  to  the  Bible?    Not  one. 
They  are  only  beautiful  because  they  are  biblical. 
Have  not  some  noble  moral  apothegms  been  added 
to  the  Bible?    Not  one.     If  one,  produce  it.      If  you 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  53 

produce  it,  I  will  engage  to  find  it  in  the  Bible  as  to 
its  spiritual  veracity.  If  any  man  thinks  he  can  add 
to  the  commandments  of  God,  he  may  be  the  man 
who  was  in  the  Apostle's  mind  when  he  wrote :  "  If 
there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  summed  up 
in  this  word,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself."  There  are,  then,  germ-commandments. 
There  may  be  more  in  a  commandment  than  there 
seems  to  be.  Man's  genius,  even  in  commandment- 
making,  cannot  outrun  or  exceed  God's  inspiration. 

How  are  the  biblical  documents  to  be  read?  Can 
the  technical  or  strictly  professional  grammarian  read 
them  ?  Can  the  mere  elocutionist  bring  himself 
within  the  lines  of  their  innermost  meaning?  It 
must,  in  simple  justice  to  my  purpose,  be  distinctly 
understood  that  in  speaking  of  the  grammarian  or 
the  philologist,  I  speak  of  him  only  in  his  academical 
capacity,  and  in  that  capacity  I  hardly  hesitate  to 
deny  his  ability  to  read  the  Bible  at  all.  I  even 
doubt  whether  he  should  take  upon  himself  the 
office  of  an  interpreter.  In  holding  this  opinion  I 
am  not  underestimating  his  ability  ;  I  am  recognizing 
the  peculiar  quality  and  unique  purpose  of  the  Bible. 


54  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Thank  God,  the  Church  has  ever  been  rich  in  men 
who  are  happily  both  grammarians  and  interpreters ; 
I  am,  however,  speaking  of  grammatical  experts  who 
do  not  even  profess  to  care  for  the  Bible  more  than 
for  any  other  book.  A  man  may  be  able  to  parse 
a  book  without  being  able  to  understand  it;  and 
a  man  may  approve  the  grammar  of  a  book  in  the 
very  act  of  combating  its  doctrine.  In  reference  to 
the  Bible  the  grammarian  pure  and  simple  has  an 
undoubtedly  important  work  to  do,  but  a  still  more 
important  work  to  leave  undone.  He  must  pass  from 
grammar  to  sympathy  before  he  can  understand  or 
explain  some  passages.  Grammar  deals  with  syntax, 
philology  deals  with  words ;  sympathy  penetrates  the 
writer's  soul,  and  elicits  the  half- expressed  meaning 
of  his  heart.  Perhaps  only  the  mother  can  read  the 
child's  letter.  But  will  God  reveal  more  to  igno- 
rance than  he  will  reveal  to  largeness  of  knowledge  ? 
Who  can  say  ?  His  way  is  in  the  whirlwind  and  in 
the  cloud,  and  it  is  not  known.  He  says  he  will 
look  to  the  man  who  is  of  a  broken  heart ;  and  a 
little  child  is  his  image  of  greatness  in  his  kingdom. 
It  may  be  that  some  kind  of  ignorance  is  a  qualifica- 
tion for  receiving  spiritual  mysteries.     Humility  may 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  55 

be  more  and  better  than  syntax,  and  "  babes  "  may 
be  trusted  with  revelations  withheld  from  "  the  wise 
and  prudent."  "  Even  so,  Father;  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thy  sight."  God  rejects  the  narrow  wisdom 
which  offers  incense  to  its  own  vanity.  "  Woe  unto 
them  that  are  wise  in  their  own  eyes,  and  prudent 
in  their  own  sight."  "  I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of 
the  wise,  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the  understand- 
ing of  the  prudent."  "We  speak  the  wisdom  of 
God,  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew." 
It  was  to  very  plain  men  that  Jesus  said :  "  It  is 
given  to  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given."  Grammar  and 
philology  are  indispensable  within  their  own  lines. 
No  man  must  imagine  that  he  is  wise  because  he  is 
not  a  grammarian.  The  dogmatism  of  ignorance 
never  rendered  any  real  service  to  the  truth.  The 
cant  of  self-depreciation  may  be  but  concealed  infal- 
libility. It  is  important  to  make  these  things  clear 
that  error  may  be  avoided  on  both  sides.  Jesus 
Christ  was  reproached  with  never  having  learned 
letters;  yet  his  sayings  are  unfathomable,  taberna- 
cling in  letters  as  angels  might  halt  under  the  roof  of 
men.     My  submission,  then,  is  that  the  Bible  is  more 


56  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

than  a  book ;  it  is  marked  by  a  peculiar  quality — the 
quality  which  makes  the  Bible  what  it  is — a  separat- 
ing and  differentiating  quality — call  it  supremely 
spiritual,  or  call  it  distinctively  supernatural — and 
that  quality  can  only  be  penetrated  by  a  spirit  kin- 
dred to  its  own,  and  that  in  the  reading  of  the  inner- 
most meaning  of  the  Bible  spiritual  character  is  the 
chief  medium  or  instrument  of  "  the  higher  criti- 
cism." The  moment  inspiration  begins,  the  appa- 
ratus of  criticism  must  be  changed.  It  is  admitted 
by  all  who  regard  the  Bible  as  something  more  than 
an  interesting  collation  of  very  ancient  literature, 
that  there  is  some  kind  of  inspiration  in  it,  that  God 
is  revealed  in  it,  and  that  God's  will  in  some  sense 
or  degree  is  made  known  in  it.  At  that  point  literal 
criticism  begins  to  feel  its  limitations.  At  that  point 
another  function  of  inquiry  or  appreciation  comes 
into  action.  The  Apostle  Paul  puts  the  matter  in 
the  most  lucid  and  acceptable  manner  when  he  says, 
'  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  he  cannot  know  them  because 
they  are  spiritually  discerned,  judged,  or  examined." 
The  Apostle  claims  that  some  things  are  "  revealed 
through  the  Spirit."     He  says,  "  The  Spirit  searcheth 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  57 

all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God."  The  most 
profound  literal  criticism  will  pause  at  this  point,  and 
the  ablest  scholars  will  themselves  be  the  first  to 
confess  that  they  are  standing  on  holy  ground.  I 
claim,  then,  that  in  the  degree  in  which  the  Bible  is 
inspired,  it  can  be  truly  read  only  by  the  ministry 
of  the  inspiring  Spirit,  and  that  he  only  who  receives 
the  Holy  Ghost  can  feel  the  power  of  Holy  Script- 
ure.    The  lexicon  cannot  supersede  the  Spirit. 

With  a  theology  so  vast,  so  sublime,  yet  so  prac- 
tical, calling  us  to  all  that  is  mysterious  and  ghostly 
in  adoration,  summoning  the  soul  into  the  inmost 
sanctuary  of  the  Invisible  God — without  a  shape  on 
which  to  rest  the  affrighted  eye,  or  a  line  on  which 
to  lay  the  trembling  hand ;  calling  us  onward  and 
upward  through  a  silence  that  makes  our  very 
breathing  a  conscious  trespass,  and  through  a  light 
from  which  our  very  purity  shrinks  in  shame — with 
a  theology  so  practical  as  to  search  our  hidden  life 
as  with  fire,  to  test  our  standards  and  balances,  to 
bring  our  words  to  judgment,  and  to  track  our  daily 
course  with  the  criticism  of  God — with  a  theology 
demanding   personal    incarnation   in   fellowship   and 


58  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

service,  charging  us  with  the  sacred  trust  of  repre- 
senting Christ  to  a  hostile  world,  and  constantly 
charging  us  to  prove  the  reality  of  our  faith  by  the 
sincerity  of  our  love — with  such  a  theology  handed 
to  us  by  inspired  penmen  for  exposition  and  exem- 
plification, who  does  not  see  that  high  above  all 
other  qualifications — even  prophecy,  tongues,  mys- 
teries, and  all  knowledge — must  stand  in  holy  isola- 
tion and  solitary  privilege  the  PURE  HEART  that 
alone  can  see  God? 

But  there  are  not  only  documents,  there  are  living 
prophets.  It  is  claimed  that  some  men  are  now  in- 
spired. It  is  also  claimed  that  preachers,  teachers, 
prophets  may  now  receive  direct  messages  from  God, 
and  that  until  they  do  receive  such  messages  they 
have  no  right  or  authority  to  preach.  We  must 
understand  this  statement  before  we  can  receive  it. 
What  does  it  mean  ?  The  inspiration  of  the  human 
heart  is  perfectly  possible  apart  from  the  reception 
of  a  new  or  personal  message.  We  may  be  inspired 
to  read  old  messages  aright.  There  may  be  an 
inspiration  of  delivery  as  well  as  an  inspiration  of 
authorship.     We  may  be  inspired  to  read  and  not  to 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  59 

write.  "  Then  opened  he  their  understandings,  that 
they  might  understand  the  Scriptures."  "  Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things 
out  of  thy  law."  If  we  meditate  day  and  night  in 
the  divine  law,  we  may  receive  a  truly  divine  inspira- 
tion without  being  conscious  of  having  received  a 
formal  message  which  has  been  withheld  from  every 
other  praying  soul.  Every  man  will  be  inspired  ac- 
cording to  his  own  individuality.  But  we  must  be- 
ware lest  we  make  any  Scripture  of  "  private  interpre- 
tation," and  cry,  "  Lo  here,"  or  "  Lo  there,"  without 
Christ's  authority.  Inspired  men  may  be  least  con- 
scious of  their  own  inspiration.  The  more  a  man  is 
inspired,  the  more  clearly  will  he  recognize  inspira- 
tion in  others.  It  is  so  in  art,  in  statesmanship,  in 
character ;  why  not  in  our  estimate  of  "  the  goodly 
fellowship  of  the  prophets,"  and  "  the  glorious  com- 
pany of  the  apostles  "  ?  If  every  man  is  to  preach 
the  special  message  which  he  is  supposed  to  have 
received  from  God,  we  shall  have  not  a  few  conflict- 
ing inspirations.  But  precisely  the  same  difficulty 
arises  from  an  inspired  reading  of  an  inspired  book. 
All  sermons  do  not  agree.  All  doctrines  do  not 
agree.     All  conceptions  of  the  Church  do  not  agree. 


60  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Yet  all  are  supposed  to  be  traceable  to  the  Bible  or 
to  be  actually  founded  upon  its  distinct  teaching. 
Able  attempts  have  been  made  in  all  Christian  cent- 
uries to  propitiate  the  infidel  when  he  has  asked 
whether  such  and  such  discrepancies  can  be  recon- 
ciled, or  such  and  such  sanguinary  policies  can  have 
been  instigated  or  approved  by  a  God  of  mercy,  or 
such  and  such  anomalies  would  be  permitted  to 
exist  if  the  supposed  Ruler  of  the  world  were  really 
omnipotent.  But  that  line  of  questioning  only 
begins  the  deeper  and  bitterer  interrogation — it  is 
unbelief  in  its  crudest  state.  Unbelief  not  only  at- 
tacks the  historical  and  external  contradictions  of  the 
Bible,  it  follows  faith  into  the  interpretation  of  what 
we  call  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  ridicules  its  most 
cherished  sanctities:  unbelief  mocks  at  prayer;  it 
jeers  at  a  Bible  out  of  which  both  the  Trinitarian 
and  the  Unitarian  bring  convincing  and  overwhelm- 
ing proof ;  it  mocks  the  Arminian  and  the  Calvinist, 
as  each  goes  to  the  same  book  to  prove  that  the 
other  is  wrong ;  to  the  most  solitary  and  august  of 
all  sufferers  it  says,  "  Save  thyself  and  come  down 
from  the  cross;"  and  it  flippantly  regards  the  future 
as  a  cloud,  and   heaven  as  a  fantasy.      Unbelief  is 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  6 1 

not  confined  to  technicalities.  It  is  really  a  mistake 
to  suppose  that  Unbelief  is  standing  outside  the 
ring-fence  of  Faith  sobbing  out  its  tender  heart  and 
begging  Christian  scholars  to  explain  how,  in  Sam- 
uel, David  took  from  the  King  of  Zobah  a  thousand 
and  seven  hundred  horsemen,  and  how,  in  Chroni- 
cles, he  took  from  the  same  king,  apparently  on  the 
same  occasion,  a  thousand  chariots  and  seven  thou- 
sand horsemen.  Dear,  sweet,  guileless  Unbelief  is 
quite  prepared  to  enter  the  church  and  enjoy  the 
sacraments  if  only  the  number  of  horses  could  be 
made  the  same  in  one  book  as  it  is  in  the  other. 
No,  no,  that  is  not  the  measure  of  Unbelief.  That 
is  only  where  Unbelief  begins.  When  he  has  been 
satisfied  respecting  the  horse  and  his  rider,  the  docile 
infidel  will  say,  "  And  how  are  the  dead  raised  up, 
and  with  what  body  do  they  come?"  Do  not 
imagine  that  the  delightful  infidel,  that  pet  of  all 
juveniles,  is  only  waiting  to  see  the  Hexateuch  prop- 
erly dated  and  properly  signed,  in  order  that  he  may 
adopt  the  creeds  and  idolize  "  the  historic  episco- 
pate." Infidelity,  where  it  is  honest  and  courageous, 
sets  itself  in  ostentatious  hostility  along  the  whole 
line  of  the   supernatural,  the   revealed,  and   the   in- 


62  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

spired,  and  not  merely  against  certain  literal  and 
obvious  discrepancies.  By  all  means  let  discrepan- 
cies be  reconciled  or  removed — scholarship  is  quite 
equal  to  this  useful  work — but  do  not  suppose  that 
the  successful  readjustment  of  chronologies,  dates, 
and  authorships  will  lead  the  infidel  to  accept  the 
Bible  as  "  the  inspired  record  of  the  Word  of  God." 
I  question  whether  it  would  even  help  him  to  do  so. 
Possibly  it  would  bring  into  more  vivid  and  revolt- 
ing significance  the  fact  that  he  "  did  not  like  to  re- 
tain God  in  his  knowledge  "  (Rom.  i.  28).  It  is  not 
for  me  to  become  a  judge  of  motive,  or  to  defame 
men  simply  because  they  differ  from  me ;  neither  is 
it  for  me  to  contradict  "  the  inspired  record  of  the 
Word  of  God  "  when  it  declares  that  certain  men 
"  became  vain  in  their  imaginations  and  their  foolish 
heart  was  darkened,"  and  "they  changed  the  truth 
of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshiped  and  served  the 
creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for- 
ever." 

I  am  addressing  myself  to  the  point  that  men  may 
to-day  be  as  directly  inspired  as  were  the  apostles, 
and  I  merely  noticed  the  infidel  by  the  way.     That 


THE   PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  63 

there  are  honest  infidels  may  be  quite  as  true  as  that 
some  men  are  born  blind.  My  point  is  that  even 
now  teachers  who  see  no  reason  to  doubt  their 
own  inspiration  differ  from  one  another  in  their 
interpretation  of  "  the  inspired  record  of  the  Word 
of  God."  Then  what  is  the  value  of  inspiration? 
When  a  house  is  divided  against  itself  can  it  surely 
stand  ?  When  inspiration  has  lost  its  consistency 
has  it  not  forfeited  its  authority?  Can  a  fountain 
send  forth  sweet  waters  and  bitter?  If  the  inspired 
men  of  the  present  day  give  different  views  of  fact ; 
if  the  very  first  sentence  in  some  of  their  books  is  a 
misstatement;  if  their  very  prefaces  are  marked  by 
glaring  errors  of  fact — does  not  this  throw  a  strong 
light  upon  some  things  in  the  obviously  mechanical 
part  of  the  Bible?  Is  there  not  an  inspiration  of 
doctrine?  Is  there  not  an  inspiration  that  leaves 
the  self-boastful  intellect  alone  and  delivers  its  holy 
message  to  the  obedient  heart  alone?  There  is  no 
need  to  be  afraid  of  apparently  conflicting  inspira- 
tions wrhere  the  moral  purpose  is  noble.  The  poor- 
est of  all  consistency  may  be  identity  in  words.  I 
do  not  doubt  that  a  strong  biblical  argument  could 
be  drawn  up  in  support  of  free-will,  and  certainly 


64  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

an  equally  strong  argument  could  be  drawn  up 
in  support  of  predestinarianism.  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  the  humanity  of  Christ  as  delineated  in 
the  New  Testament;  he  is  called  "  a  man  mighty  in 
word  and  deed,"  and  again  he  is  called  "  the  man 
Christ  Jesus";  he  said  he  did  not  speak  his  own 
words,  but  the  words  of  him  who  sent  him ;  he  said 
his  Father  was  greater  than  he,  and  "  being  in  an 
agony,  he  prayed."  On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  Christ 
has  been  adored  and  trusted  as  God  the  Son,  and 
his  deity  has  been  defended  out  of  the  very  New 
Testament  which  is  supposed  to  have  proved  his 
simple  but  holy  manhood.  Paul  is  supposed  to 
have  taught  salvation  by  faith,  and  James  is  regarded 
as  having  taught  salvation  by  works.  It  is  possi- 
ble that  some  minds  may  regard  these  as  infinitely 
greater  discrepancies  and  confusions  than  those  con- 
nected with  dates,  localities,  battles,  spoils,  and  ped- 
igrees, and  if  they  are  irreconcilable  I  agree  with 
the  estimate  formed  of  their  importance.  They  do 
not  put  my  faith  to  any  strain.  There  are  great 
discrepancies  amongst  human  minds.  There  are 
great  discrepancies  in  each  individual  human  mind. 
Man   may  be   described   as   self-discrepant.      Inspi- 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  65 

ration  operating  through  such  instruments  must  be 
affected  by  the  medium  of  its  action.  One  man  is  a 
poet,  another  is  a  reasoner ;  will  they  report  upon 
any  mystery  in  the  same  way?  Will  they  see  ex- 
actly the  same  thing  and  nothing  more  in  any  fact 
in  life  ?  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  man,  and  I 
also  believe  that  he  was  God  the  Son.  Faith  has  its 
function,  and  so  has  obedience.  Man's  will  is  free 
within  God's  sovereignty.  The  bird  may  fly  in  the 
open  firmament,  but  it  cannot  pass  beyond  the 
horizon.  Things  apparently  so  antagonistic  do  not 
necessarily  contradict  each  other;  when  justly  inter- 
preted, they  may  complete  each  other.  It  is  along 
this  line  that  I  find  satisfaction  and  peace.  A  chap- 
ter of  Paul  should  be  followed  by  a  chapter  of 
James.  The  miracles  and  the  beatitudes  should  be 
read  together.  This  doctrine  of  mutual  completion 
should  be  applied  along  the  whole  line  of  thought 
and  experience.  No  one  minister  is  the  ministry. 
No  one  communion  is  the  Church.  No  one  man 
is  humanity.  We  need  all  the  parts  to  make  the 
whole,  and  we  need  the  whole  to  understand  each  of 
the  parts. 

I  am  not  indisposed,  then,  to  believe  in  present- 


66  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

day  inspiration,  and  present-day  prophets,  under 
conditions  which  can  be  clearly  stated,  the  principal 
condition  being  that  current  inspiration  shall  operate 
with  biblical  lines.  The  reason  for  this  limitation,  if 
it  is  a  limitation,  is  that  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible 
is  inclusive  and  complete.  This  would  be  a  mere 
statement  if  it  could  not  be  instantly  followed  by 
illustrations  and  proofs.  My  submission  is  that  in 
nothing  whatsoever  that  is  wise,  good,  true,  can 
present-day  inspiration  make  any  advance  upon  the 
Bible.  That  is  a  clear  issue.  Happily  it  is  an  issue 
that  can  be  submitted  to  practical  tests.  Take  the 
supreme  question  of  character.  The  quality  of  man- 
hood that  is  produced  or  contemplated  by  any  book 
is  a  good  test  of  the  quality  of  the  book  itself,  pro- 
vided always  that  the  character  is  not  merely  pic- 
torial, but  vital  and  beneficent.  What,  then,  can 
transcend  the  biblical  conception  of  character?  It 
is  character  founded  upon  a  New  Birth.  At  this 
moment  we  are  dealing  with  the  conception  and  not 
with  the  inner  mystery.  Has  modern  inspiration 
made  any  advance  upon  that  conception?  The 
New  Birth  means  in  its  evolution,  holiness,  com- 
pleteness of  the  divine  image  in  the  soul,  new  creat- 


THE  PERMANENT  QUANTITY.  67 

ureship,  eternal  life.  Can  present-day  inspiration 
indicate  any  omissions  of  excellence  and  supply 
them?  If  detail  is  required,  here  it  is :  "  The  fruit 
of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  kind- 
ness, goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  self-control." 
Can  one  word  be  added?  Take  the  question  of 
Social  Beneficence.  Socialism,  variously  defined,  is 
the  rage  of  the  hour.  Have  we  moved  one  step  be- 
yond the  Bible-line?  I  trust  we  have  inspiration 
enough  to  be  just  even  to  the  Bible.  Has  any  man 
added  one  tint  of  beauty  to  the  parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan?  Has  the  modern  prophet  ever  sent  a 
tenderer  message  to  wandering  souls  than  the  par- 
able of  the  Prodigal  Son  ?  Is  social  service  poorly 
represented  in  the  closing  words  of  the  twenty-fifth 
chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew?  Through  and 
through,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  the  Bible  is 
saturated  with  the  spirit  of  sympathy,  and  alive  with 
the  doctrine  of  social  responsibility.  What,  then, 
can  present-day  inspiration  do?  It  will  find  its 
function  in  obedience.  New  forms  and  new  appli- 
cations are  possible,  and  in  occasional  instances  may 
even  be  desirable,  but  the  root-ideas  are  in  the 
Bible.     That  Book  is  more  than  a  record.     Records 


68  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

refer  to  the  past,  but  the  Bible  claims  and  rules  the 
whole  future.  That  is  an  infinite  distinction.  I 
call  special  and  prolonged  attention  to  it.  The  Bible 
is,  indeed,  a  record;  but  it  is  also  a  revelation.  It 
is  not  only  a  tree  on  whose  fruit  the  ancients  fed,  it 
is  the  Tree  of  Life,  and  its  leaves  are  for  the  healing 
of  nations  yet  unborn. 


III. 

THE   ORIGINS. 

WHAT  are  some  of  the  main  results,  in  reference 
to  biblical  criticism,  from  a  popular  point  of 
view,  which  recent  inquiry  has  for  the  moment  ac- 
cepted? The  inquirers  are,  I  cannot  too  clearly  and 
impressively  repeat,  our  friends  and  companions  in 
the  kingdom  and  patience  of  Jesus,  and  their  supreme 
object  is  not  negative  but  positive,  not  destructive 
but  constructive.  They  are  not  excelled  by  any  of 
us  in  their  ardent  love  of  those  parts  of  the  Bible 
which  they  believe  to  be  inspired.  Less  and  less,  as 
life  advances,  am  I  disposed  to  wrangle  with  anti- 
christian  or  infidel  critics,  even  though  they  come 
from  a  foreign  country  and  overbear  us  with  rugged 
names.  I  am  not  afraid  of  them.  They  come  and 
go  like  epidemics.  It  is  infinitely  otherwise  with 
brethren  whom  we  love  and  honor,  and  whose  holy 

69 


70  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

example  is  amongst  us  like  a  light  from  heaven. 
What,  then,  are  some  of  the  main  positions  which 
our  friends  invite  us  to  accept?  In  a  popular  and 
general  form  they  may  be  stated  thus : 

I:  Some  biblical  books  are  either 
anonymous  or  pseudonymous. 

2.  Inspiration  does  not  guarantee 
historical  accuracy. 

3.  Some  biblical  books  are  wrong 
in  date,  wrong  in  numbers, 
wrong  in  chronology,  and  mis- 
placed in  canonical  order. 

4.  Biblical  authorship,  or  editor- 
ship, is  composite :  Bible  repre- 
sentations of  some  great  events 
are  dual  and  even  conflicting, 
as,  for  example,  the  two  ac- 
counts of  the  Creation  and  the 
two  genealogies  of  Christ. 

5.  The  Bible  is  "  the  inspired  rec- 
ord of  the  Word  of  God." 

If  we  had  to  deal  with  experts  only,  no  difficulty 
of  an  insurmountable  kind  need  arise  in  connection 
with  these  positions;  but  as  preachers  we  have  to 
deal  largely  with  novices  whose  instinctive  judg- 
ments ought  to  be  regarded,  lest  in  treading  them 
down  we  do  violence  even  to  some  rude  form  and 


THE  ORIGINS.  7  I 

expression   of   the   kingdom  of  God.     These  judg- 
ments may  be  generally  indicated  thus : 

If  the  Bible  is  wrong  in  history, 
what  guarantee  is  there  that  it  is 
right  in  morals? 

If  the  Bible  is  not  a  reliable  guide 
in  facts,  how  do  we  know  that  it  is 
a  trustworthy  guide  in  doctrines? 

If  there  are  two  creations,  why  may 
there  not  be  two  resurrections? 

If  there  are  two  genealogies,  why 
not  two  Christs? 

If  the  Bible  is  untrustworthy  upon 
points  which  we  can  definitely  test, 
how  do  we  know  that  it  is  to  be 
depended  upon  in  matters  we  can- 
not prove? 

These  inquiries  may  be  crudely  put  as  to  form, 
yet  they  are  neither  unreasonable  nor  unnatural,  nor 
are  they  to  be  treated  with  professional  haughtiness 
or  contempt.  Pedantry  may  sneer  at  them,  but 
scholarship  never  sneers;  scholarship  often  pities, 
and  always  helps.  Scholarship  is  patient.  To  pa- 
tience scholarship  owes  its  riches.  The  inquiries, 
then,  are  popular,  perhaps  rude,  perhaps  shallow, 
but  not,   therefore,  insincere.      In  view  of  such  in- 


72  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

quiries,  and  in  the  very  degree  in  which  they  express 
an  excitement  which  may  cool  into  unbelief,  may 
not  popery  claim  to  have  a  good  defense  when  it 
insists  upon  revelation  passing  to  the  people  only 
through  the  channel  of  the  priest?  Popery  says, 
in  effect,  "The  Bible  is  literature;  only  scholars  can 
understand  it;  it  is  written  in  many  languages  abso- 
lutely locked  against  the  populace;  let  the  priest 
deal  it  out  discreetly ;  do  not  throw  pearls  before 
swine;  let  the  Church  keep  all  the  keys."  And  does 
not  Protestantism  pass  the  Bible  to  the  people,  in 
some  instances,  through  a  kind  of  popery  of  its  own, 
even  through  a  kind  of  monastic  uniqueness  of 
learning,  which  can  only  be  understood  by  experts 
and  specialists?  I  ask  the  question  in  the  hope  that 
it  can  be  answered  in  the  negative.  I  am  jealous 
lest  the  Bible  should  in  any  sense  be  made  a  priest's 
book.  Even  Baur  or  Colenso  may,  contrary  to  his 
own  wishes,  be  almost  unconsciously  elevated  into  a 
literary  deity  under  whose  approving  nod  alone  we 
can  read  the  Bible  with  any  edification.  It  is  no 
secret  that  when  Baur  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  as  un-Pauline  Christian  Europe  became 
partially  paralyzed,  and  that  when   Hilgenfeld  pro- 


THE  ORIGINS.  73 

nounced  it  Pauline  Christian  Europe  resumed  its 
prayers.  Have  we  to  await  a  communication  from 
Tiibingen,  or  a  telegram  from  Oxford,  before  we  can 
read  the  Bible?  The  Bible  is  not  the  Bible  to  me 
because  Herr  Baur  countersigns  it,  but  because  it  re- 
veals, as  no  other  book  has  yet  revealed,  the  almight- 
iness  and  the  all-love  of  the  Eternal  God. 

We  are  cautioned,  however,  against  calling  the 
Bible  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  said  to  be  so  mixed 
up  with  human  error  that  such  a  designation  might 
give  a  false  impression.  But  is  not  a  false  impres- 
sion of  exactly  the  same  kind  given  about  the  earth 
when  we  say 

"THE   EARTH    IS   THE    LORD'S  "? 

We  may  not,  according  to  some  teachers,  say  the 
Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  but  we  may  say  the  earth 
is  the  Lord's.  How  do  we  know  that  the  earth  is 
the  Lord's?  Who  told  us?  We  ought  to  produce 
our  authority  for  the  bold  assertion.  Astute  ob- 
servers have  not  hesitated  to  say  that  whoever  made 
the  world,  whatever  else  he  might  be  he  certainly 
was  not  almighty.     John  Stuart  Mill  ("Theism")  says 


74  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

that  the  Kosmos  is  marvelously  ingenious,  "but," 
he  adds,  "  nothing  obliges  us  to  suppose  that  either 
the  knowledge  or  the  skill  is  infinite."  He  thinks 
the  human  body  is  an  artful  contrivance,  but  he  is 
of  opinion  that  it  might  "  have  been  made  to  last 
longer"  (page  181).  Yet  we  go  on  saying  that  the 
earth  is  the  Lord's  regardless  of  Mr.  Mill's  tender 
bringing  up.  He  thinks  that  the  groveling  condition 
of  the  human  race  is  an  argument  against  the  omnip- 
otence of  the  Creator,  yet  he  thinks — and  his  mag- 
nanimity should  be  appreciated — that  "  the  divine 
power  may  not  have  been  equal  to  doing  more " 
(page  182).  Yet  we  go  on  saying  that  the  earth  is 
the  Lord's.  We  dare  not  say  that  the  Bible  is  the 
Word  of  God,  because  some  infidel  will  point  to 
chapter  four  or  verse  twenty-one  and  ask  if  such 
and  such  words  could  have  come  from  lips  divine ; 
and  we 'dare  not  say  that  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  be- 
cause John  Stuart  Mill  would  be  shocked  by  the 
suggestion  that  such  a  faulty  world  could  have  been 
created  by  an  almighty  agent.  Probably  in  setting 
up  such  opponents  as  the  portal  through  which 
alone  we  can  properly  approach  any  proposition  we 
are  hampering  our  inquiries  by  needless  conditions. 


THE  ORIGINS.  75 

Sometimes  the  enemy  should  be  consulted  last,  not 
first. 

We  are  wisely  cautioned  against  reading  meanings 
into  the  Bible.  We  should  be  also  cautioned  against 
reading  meanings  out  of  it.  If  books  are  rigidly 
human,  we  have  no  right  to  force  upon  authors 
meanings  which  never  entered  into  their  thoughts. 
The  meanings  may  be  vast  and  brilliant,  yet  we  have 
no  right  to  treat  arithmetic  as  an  effort  in  poetry. 
When  a  man  has  made  a  plain  turnpike  through  his 
estate  we  have  no  right  to  credit  him  with  having 
seduced  the  Ganges  through  his  private  grounds. 
But  when  books  are  of  another  quality  altogether — 
if  they  are  in  any  way  inspired — if  they,  by  the  very 
nature  of  their  contents,  can  only  partly  express  the 
authors'  thought  and  feeling,  and  if  the  authors 
themselves  say  so,  such  books  may  be  justly  treated 
from  the  point  of  suggestiveness,  and  thus  there 
may  be  found  in  them  the  seed  of  many  thoughts, 
as  a  forest  may  repose  in  an  acorn.  In  the  case  of 
the  Bible  we  have  a  book  which  deals  with  infinite 
subjects  only  by  way  of  indication,  never  by  the 
method  of  exhaustion.     As  the  Spirit  helps  our  in- 


76  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

firmities  in  prayer,  so  he  will  help  our  infirmity  in. 
reading,  and  thus  he  may  show  us  wondrous  things 
even  in  familiar  places.  I  do  not  want  to  know 
what  Moses  said;  I  want,  as  before  explained,  to 
know  what  God  said  through  Moses.  He  may  tell 
the  reader  more  than  he  told  the  amanuensis,  yet  all 
the  larger  meanings  may  be  in  the  very  words  of  the 
original  dictation !  The  amanuensis  is  dead :  the 
Author  cannot  die!  We  do  not  believe  the  reve- 
lation because  it  is  signed,  we  believe  it  because  of 
what  it  is  in  itself.  It  is  of  small  consequence  to  me 
who  wrote  the  Book  of  Genesis,  but  it  is  of  infinite 
significance  to  me  that  its  very  first  sentence  is  a 
compendium  of  the  total  revelation  of  the  Bible. 
Minds  are  variously  constituted,  so  much  so  that  it 
is  sometimes  almost  impossible  for  one  man  to 
understand  another.  I  cannot  expect,  therefore,  to 
be  universally  understood  when  I  say  that  there  is 
nothing  substantial  and  far-reaching  in  the  whole 
Bible  which  is  not  anticipated  and  implicated  in  its 
very  first  sentence.  To  some  minds  this  will  be 
rhetoric,  poetry,  fancy,  fantasy ;  yet  to  my  own 
mind,  and  provable  to  my  austerest  moods,  it  is  the 
simplest   and    most  convincing   logic.      In   the   first 


THE  ORIGINS.  yj 

verse  of  the  Bible  I  find  the  message  of  the  whole 
volume.  That  first  verse  may  be  represented  in 
various  ways.  As  a  manner  of  announcement  it 
is  sudden  thunder.  As  a  revelation  it  is  morning 
dawning  through  gathered  darkness.  As  an  answer 
to  mute  but  hopeful  wonder  it  is  like  sunrise  on  the 
sea.     This  is  the  infinite  speech : 

"  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and 

the  earth." 

Taken  as  a  mere  sentence,  can  it  be  exceeded  in 
grandeur?  Taken  as  a  conjecture,  can  any  addition 
be  made  to  its  sublimity?  Taken  as  an  inspired 
thought,  who  can  heighten  its  elevation  ?  Taken  as 
a  direct  voice  from  Eternity,  who  can  charge  it  with 
apology  or  incertitude  ?  If  this  sentence  is  not  the 
very  Word  of  God  I  dare  not,  I  cannot,  I  will  not, 
say  it  is  the  word  of  man.      Let  us  listen : 

"  In  the  Beginning, — The  remotest  date  that  has  yet  been  sug- 
gested. Science  has  its  slow-rising  and 
slow-falling  centuries,  yet  "  the  begin- 
ning " — the  dateless  date — includes  them 
all  and  drowns  them  in  a  deeper  sea.  On 
that  ocean  millenniums  are  tufts  of  foam. 


78  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

"GOD, —  Personality,  Will,  Thought,  Purpose:  an 

undefined  Definition — matching  the  unbe- 
ginning  beginning — an  impersonal  Person- 
ality—  the  shapeless  Shape.  God!  He 
enters  his  own  Book  instantaneously.  He 
comes  not  as  a  spectacle,  but  in  the  very 
glory  and  supreme  purpose  of  Action. 

"  Created," —  A  process;  slow,  quick,  deliberate,  infinite 

— before  all  speech,  therefore  baffling  it; 
before  all  form,  therefore  without  com- 
parison— the  beginning  of  Action,  there- 
fore without  parallel. 


Man  never  spake  that  Word  on  his  own  motion. 
He  was  told  to  speak  it.  Eternity  delivered  the 
secret  to  him,  and  whispered  it  in  fit  syllables. 
There  is  no  mark  of  man  upon  it.  It  is  a  planet  he 
never  molded.     It  is  the  Morning  Star. 

Yes;  I  find  everything  there.  Now  that  I  go 
back  upon  it  how  clear  it  is  that  this  is  the  proto- 
plasm of  revelation.  Within  how  small  a  compass 
can  the  Eternal  dwell !  What  comes  after  this  will 
be  the  attenuation  of  itself.  To  meet  our  ignorance 
God  goes  into  the  very  detail  in  which  man  has  lost 
him.  To  create  is  not  a  stopping-point  in  the 
divine  action.     "  Created  "  is  a  pregnant  word.     It 


THE  ORIGINS.  79 

is  necessarily  initial  and  incomplete  as  a  mere  term. 
If  God  "  created "  he  did  everything  which  that 
word  can  imply : 

To  create  is  to  PROTECT; 
To  protect  is  to  REDEEM; 
To  redeem  is  to  PRIZE; 
To  prize  is  to  COMPLETE; 
To  complete  is  to  GLORIFY. 

Creation,  therefore,  is  a  complex  and  multitudi- 
nous act,  not  an  ostentatious  and  dazzling  display  of 
mere  might.  Man  begins  much  and  finishes  little. 
His  broken  columns  stud  the  cemeteries  of  the  ages. 
He  may  be  tracked  by  his  abortions.  Even  a 
woman  may  forget  her  sucking  child.  The  sub- 
creator,  proud  and  wanton,  selfish  and  shortsighted, 
may  be  a  monster,  and  may  judge  the  Creator  by  his 
own  littleness.  That  is  our  continual  temptation. 
We  infinitize  ourselves  and  call  the  issue  God! 
Man  can  leave  his  plow  in  mid-furrow,  and  abandon 
his  tower  when  half  built,  but  God  having  " created" 
will  accomplish  the  fullness  of  his  purpose  and  place 
the  approving  crown  upon  the  perfected  miracle  of 
his  grace. 


80  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

As  to  processes  needful  for  the  detailed  evolution 
— processes  of  many  kinds,  natural,  social,  military, 
imperial,  personal,  disciplinary — they  will  come  and 
go  in  infinite  variety  of  combination,  and  when 
rightly  grasped  they  will  all  be  seen  to  help  the  cen- 
tral and  dominating  purpose.  The  danger  is  that 
we  may  be  lost  amidst  the  incessant  and  cross-mov- 
ing details.  The  moment  we  lose  hold  of  the  unit 
the  fractions  may  make  inroad  upon  our  faith. 
When  we  are  troubled  by  the  second  verse  we 
should  instantly  return  to  the  first.  There  we  have 
read  of  the  creation  of  the  earth,  but  we  have  heard 
nothing  of  man.  Yes  we  have.  Man  is  in  the  first 
verse.  The  house  implies  the  tenant.  No  man 
builds  a  house  that  it  may  stand  empty.  There  is 
an  unwritten  logic  even  in  commonplace  daily  life. 
The  earth  has  no  meaning  in  itself.  In  itself  it  was 
not  worth  creating.  Does  a  lock  suggest  nothing 
beyond  itself?  Is  the  bride  a  picture  self-complete? 
Does  she  fill  and  satisfy  the  altar  before  which  she 
stands?  Even  a  palace  is  ghastly  emptiness  until 
inhabited.  One  little  child  would  turn  its  gilt  into 
gold.  One  human  look  would  soften  its  glare  into 
a  home.     Thus  I  see  man,  and  all  God's  dealings 


THE  ORIGINS.  8 1 

with  man,  in  the  one  word  "  created."  The  account 
of  the  creation  has  been  called  a  poem — a  conven- 
ient term  for  the  concealment  of  unbelief  and  the 
flattery  of  ignorance  ;  but  to  my  mind  no  drearier 
prose  can  be  read  if  Man  is  omitted  from  the  stately 
action.  Grass  and  herb,  and  trees  and  waters,  and 
sun  and  moon  and  stars,  and  great  whales  and  fly- 
ing fowl,  cattle  and  creeping  things,  so  moves  the 
ponderous  monotony,  until  the  unseen  image  of  God 
is  revealed  and  humanized,  and  God  and  man  stand 
face  to  face  in  the  fellowship  of  love.  Then  we  be- 
gin to  understand.  Then  the  future  begins  to  grow 
out  of  the  seed  of  the  present.  Then  sunbeams  are 
smiles.  We  have  seen  a  Vision,  and  it  has  made  all 
things  new.  We  know  what  it  is  to  have  seen  our 
own  other  life :  that  thrilling  moment  the  heart  can 
never  mingle  with  the  common  time ;  the  sight  of 
Destiny  is  the  date  at  which  the  exultant  soul  passes 
its  transfiguration.  At  that  point  what  to  me  is  the 
Word  of  God  begins,  and  at  that  point  it  might  end 
if  I  had  eyes  to  see.  In  the  spirit  created  by  that 
experience — that  first  sight  of  the  meaning  of  things 
— I  must  watch  all  the  detail,  or  it  may  bewilder  and 
unsettle  me.     The  immeasurable  spaces  of  time  that 


82  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

may  separate  the  events  no  imagination  can  compute 
and  designate.  I  do  not  know  what  a  "  day  "  is  or 
a  "word."  I  only  know  that  God  and  man  are  in 
conference,  and  so  infinite  is  the  stoop  of  heaven 
that  the  terms  of  conference  are  practically  equal. 
By  and  by  I  shall  see  how  man  dresses  his  garden 
and  keeps  it.  If  man  should  fall  from  "  our  image 
and  our  likeness "  all  that  he  does  will  bear  the 
shameful  stigma  of  his  guilt.  His  language  must  be 
tainted  by  his  deceit.  The  shadow  of  death  will  lie 
along  the  whole  way  of  his  life.  Yet  I  shall  not  on 
that  account  undervalue  the  created  heavens  and 
earth.  The  earth  is  still  the  Lord's,  though  loaded 
and  burdened  by  the  cities  of  man.  The  moon 
and  the  stars  shine  by  God's  ordination,  though  an 
unholy  reek,  hot  with  human  wickedness,  veil  their 
placid  luster.  My  suspicion  of  man  need  not  shock 
my  faith  in  God.  I  will  hide  myself  in  the  first  sen- 
tence of  the  Bible  as  in  an  appointed  place. 

Taking  this  view  of  the  first  sentence  of  the  Bible, 
I  find  no  difficulty  in  discerning  in  it  Jesus  Christ 
and  all  his  work.  This  "  God  "  is  a  plural  Deity  yet 
One ;  plural  because  One ;  in  arithmetic  one  may  be 


THE  ORIGINS.  83 

solitariness,  in  life  it  may  be  completeness.  The 
discerning  of  Christ  in  this  verse  would  to  some 
minds  be  what  is  called  spiritualizing;  to  my  mind 
it  is  the  true  literalism.  So  variously  are  we  consti- 
tuted, though  the  humanity  is  the  same!  Paul  had 
no  difficulty  in  seeing  Christ  in  all  the  action  and 
purpose  of  creation.  Nay,  more,  of  creation  the  in- 
carnate Christ  was  the  first-born — 

"  the  image  of  the  invisible  God, 
the  first-born  of  all  creation ;  for  in 
him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things 
visible  and  things  invisible  ;  ...  all 
things  have  been  created  through 
him,  and  unto  him,  and  he  is  be- 
fore all  things,  and  in  him  all 
things  hold  together." 

Where  did  Christ  claim  this  for  himself,  except  by 
implication?  How  did  Paul  come  into  the  posses- 
sion of  this  mystery  except  by  that  Spirit  which 
brooded  upon  the  waters  when  "  the  earth  was  with- 
out form  and  void  "  ?  Let  us  indeed  take  care  lest 
we  read  meanings  out  of  texts  as  well  as  into  them. 
Where  God  has  been,  all  beauty  has  been,  all  music, 
all   light:   the  sermon  can  never  hold  all  the  text. 


84  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Christ  is  here  and  I  knew  it  not,  and  Calvary,  yet  I 
did  not  understand.  The  Atonement  is  older  than 
the  Creation,  not  in  historical  time,  which  is  of  yes- 
terday, but  in  the  divine  thought,  which  is  from 
Eternity.  Christ  is  the  "  Lamb  slain  from  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  He  was  before  all 
history.  Moses  wrote  of  him,  and  Abraham  saw  his 
day.  His  visible  personality  was  but  a  parenthe- 
sis in  a  movement  of  infinite  sweep.  We  will  per- 
versely live  in  the  bare,  bleak  wilderness  of  history 
when  we  might  revel  amidst  the  riches  of  the  Ineffa- 
ble, and  thus  we  starve  the  soul,  and  stifle  prayer  at 
the  very  point  where  it  might  have  become  praise. 

As  certainly  as  Redemption  was  involved  in  Crea- 
tion, Ascension  was  involved  in  the  Resurrection. 
It  is  curious,  and  full  of  profitableness,  to  watch  how 
the  flower  is  involved  in  the  seed.  Curious,  too,  to 
observe  how  everything  is  something  more  than 
itself,  looking  backward  and  reaching  forward  so  as 
to  complete  its  identity.  When  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead  the  rising  was  the  beginning  of  the  Ascension ; 
its  foretoken  and  hostage.  Christ  did  not  rise  that 
he  might  establish   a  miracle   and   then   die  again. 


THE  ORIGINS.  85 

"Death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him."  He 
"  was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the 
Father."  "  Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dieth 
no  more."  This  is  the  full  meaning  of  Resurrection. 
"  In  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  The  Ascension 
is  not  a  separate  and  independent  act.  All  such 
acts  go  back  to  the  multifold  word  "  created."  It 
must  be  more  than  a  word  to  us ;  it  must  be  many 
words  in  one.  Creation  is  ever  a  movement  toward 
life,  larger  life,  life  more  abundantly,  life  that  floods 
out  death.  Interruptions  will  stand  in  its  way,  but 
they  will  be  overborne  and  abolished.  "  The  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death."  But  has 
death  no  antecedent?  Is  it  a  word  cut  off,  and 
standing  apart  without  explanation?  Nay,  verily. 
The  same  law  prevails  here.  Death  is  the  fruit  of 
sin.  And  is  "sin"  in  the  word  "created"?  It  is. 
We  put  many  things  in  a  wrong  light  if  we  deny 
this.  We  de-centralize  the  Eternal  Throne.  We 
must  not  dissociate  sin  from  the  forethought  of  God, 
and  start  some  rival  providence.  But  is  God  the 
author  of  sin?  There  we  begin  to  be  deceitful  with 
ourselves.  We  stand  on  the  brink  of  a  mean  quib- 
ble.    We  do  not  realize  the  infinite  immensity  of  the 


86  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

occasion,  so  we  cannot  bring  in  the  relieving  lights, 
the  healing  compensations,  the  far-away  totality. 
Some  questions  must  be  reserved.  Enough  for  my 
immediate  faith  that  there  is  but  One  Creator,  and 
that  he  is  able  to  work  the  final  reconciliation.  Sin 
troubles  me  as  a  problem,  and  if  I  could  not  set  God 
above  it,  and  hand  it  over  to  his  sovereignty,  I  could 
no  longer  pray.  Not  here  but  there,  not  in  little 
time  but  in  boundless  eternity,  shall  we  see  death 
and  hell  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire. 

Prayer  is  another  action  involved  in  the  term 
''created."  Creation  implies  creaturedom.  Crea- 
turedom  implies — it  does  more,  it  necessitates — 
Prayer.  Creaturedom  means  limitation,  and  limi- 
tation means  necessity,  and  necessity  is  unspoken 
prayer.  The  question  is  not,  Whether  we  will  pray. 
We  cannot  help  it.  Once  realizing  the  veriest  rudi- 
ments of  civilization — once  above  the  line  of  savage 
life — we  must  pray ;  perhaps  not  intelligently,  not 
definitely,  not  reverently,  but  prayer  cannot  be 
stifled  by  adverbs ;  the  prayer  will  be  there.  It  may 
be  only  a  fear,  a  hope,  a  look,  a  superstition,  but 
there  it  is.      It  may  be  degraded  into  idolatry,  or  it 


THE  ORIGINS.  87 

may  be  invested  as  a  hypocrisy,  yet  it  remains  and 
operates  in  the  life.  We  may  even  change  the  word 
without  changing  the  thing  signified ;  we  may  speak 
of  aspiration,  longing,  wishing,  yearning,  desiring, 
but  we  do  not  shake  the  reality  we  have  not  courage 
to  avow.  When  we  pray  we  are  true  to  our  crea- 
tion. We  get  back  to  God's  first  thought  of  us. 
When  he  created  man  his  purpose  was  fellowship. 
That  fellowship  began  in  conversation ;  on  man's 
side  it  passed  into  a  cry  for  pity.  Creation  ex- 
plains prayer.  Creation,  rightly  understood,  com- 
pels prayer.  We  have  lost  something  and  must  find 
it.  To-day,  to-morrow,  or  the  third  day,  we  must 
somewhere,  be  it  on  the  hill  where  the  light  laughs, 
or  in  the  valley  where  the  graves  are  cut,  some- 
where, in  garden  or  wilderness  or  furnace  of  fire,  we 
must  pray — in  our  soul's  burning  fever  we  must  find 
a  God  or  invent  one. 

After  this  review  of  the  contents  of  the  first  verse 
of  the  Bible,  I  return  easily  and  with  fuller  convic- 
tion to  my  first  position,  that  the  whole  Bible,  as  to 
its  supreme  purpose,  is  by  implication  in  that  verse, 
and  in  the  degree  in  which  I  grasp  that  thought  the 


88  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Bible  becomes  to  me  the  Word  of  God.  As  to  how 
that  Word  may  be  written,  or  in  any  way  set  forth, 
how  it  may  bear  marks  of  editorial  error  as  to 
authorship,  dates,  numbers,  and  details,  that  is  a 
question  which  must  be  left  to  experts  and  special- 
ists ;  but  even  they  must  be  careful  not  to  invert 
proportions  and  relations  so  completely  as  to  give 
the  idea  that  the  divine  element  in  the  Bible  is  a  little 
straggling  rill  feebly  making  its  way  around  huge 
boulders  and  through  hot  sands  of  human  ignorance 
and  Jewish  prejudice.  From  my  point  of  view  the 
disclosure  of  that  divine  element  is  the  one  reason 
for  which  the  Scriptures  were  written.  If  it  was  the 
one  reason  for  which  the  Scriptures  were  written, 
there  can  be  no  difficulty  on  my  part  in  describing 
the  Scriptures  by  their  main  and  indeed  sole  pur- 
pose, and  not  by  the  mechanical  execution  either  of 
authors,  editors,  or  canonists.  But  what  of  the  in- 
fidel who  will  point  to  some  hard  text  and  stumble 
at  it?  Nothing.  Beginning  at  that  text  he  begins 
at  the  wrong  point,  and  beginning  with  him  I 
should  begin  with  the  wrong  man.  I  do  not  dismiss 
him  from  my  consideration,  yet  I  cannot  accept  him 
as  the  standard  by  which  the  Bible  is  to  be  judged. 


THE  ORIGINS.  89 

But  where  does  the  Bible  claim  for  itself  that  it  is 
the  Word  of  God?  In  its  structure,  in  its  unity,  in 
its  purpose.  Again  I  would  remind  myself  that  the 
assertion  or  non-assertion  of  mere  claim  is  nothing. 
Our  friends  claim  that  the  Bible  is  a  marvelous 
unity,  but,  we  might  retort,  where  does  the  Bible 
claim  unity  for  itself?  If  argument  is  to  be  founded 
upon  literal  claim,  the  inquiry  is  as  good  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  Viewed  from  their  standpoint, 
it  is  simply  impossible  that  the  Bible  can  claim  unity 
for  itself.  It  is  written  by  many  writers.  Its  writ- 
ers probably  knew  little  or  nothing  of  each  other. 
It  is  a  collection  of  pamphlets.  The  Scriptures 
spoken  of  by  the  apostles  did  not  include  their  own 
writings ;  at  best  the  reference  is  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  now  it  is  submitted  by  some  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  but  a  record  of  what  God  did  in  the 
days  of  the  ancient  Jews,  and  that  its  claim  upon 
our  attention  is  remote  rather  than  immediate  and 
authoritative.  What,  then,  of  the  marvelous  unity, 
and  where  is  that  unity  claimed  in  the  Bible  for  the 
Bible?  And  is  a  book  nothing  more  than  it  form- 
ally and  expressly  claims  to  be?  Suppose  we  say 
that    Blackstone's    Commentaries    arc    the     highest 


90  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

authority  upon  the  subjects  they  treat,  where  does 
Blackstone  make  any  such  claims  for  his  Commen- 
taries? If  we  find  that  he  makes  no  such  claim, 
shall  we  degrade  the  Commentaries  into  a  second- 
ary place  ?  May  not  a  book  create  its  own  standing, 
and  become  all  but  canonized  by  universal  apprecia- 
tion? I  am  not  prepared  to  regard  the  Christian 
Church  of  all  ages  as  an  anonymous  mob,  nor  am  I 
prepared  to  deny  continuous  and  direct  inspiration ; 
and  putting  these  two  things,  and  all  they  involve, 
together,  I  must  treat  at  least  with  respect  the  esti- 
mate which  has  been  placed  upon  the  Bible  by  the 
Church  universal.  If  I  have  to  choose  between  the 
judgment  of  the  Church,  and  the  criticism  of  the  in- 
fidel who  is  shocked  by  isolated  texts,  I  will  choose 
the  judgment  of  the  Church. 

There  are  two  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  may  greatly  assist  us  in  our  reading  of  the 
Scriptures.  Perhaps  by  following  out  all  their  mean- 
ing we  may  be  able  to  see  how  a  claim  may  be  set  up 
even  within  the  Bible  itself  for  its  own  unity  and  its 
own  inspiration.  One'  of  these  passages  occurs  in 
the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  Temptation  in  the  Wil- 


THE  ORIGINS.  9 1 

derness.  When  the  tempter  quoted  a  text,  the 
tempted  Saviour  replied:  "It  is  written  AGAIN." 
Scripture  completing  itself  is  the  best  commentary. 
And  that  is  the  best  answer  to  the  infidel  who  is 
horrified  by  Exodus  iv.  24-26.  Say  to  him:  "  It  is 
written  AGAIN."  Do  not  blot  out  the  passage  in 
order  to  calm  his  perturbation,  but  set  another 
passage  beside  it.  The  Bible  is  self-interpreting. 
Where  the  pool  is  bitter,  the  tree  of  healing  is  close 
at  hand.  Here  the  concordance  may  be  the  best 
commentary.  "Again,  another  Scripture  saith " 
(John  xix.  37),  is  the  greatest  answer  that  can  be 
returned  to  any  inquirer.  Within  the  Bible  you  will 
find  both  the  enigma  and  the  answer.  The  second 
help  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  Bible  I  find  in 
such  words  as  these : 

"And  his  disciples  remembered 
that  it  is  written.  .  .  .  When, 
therefore,  he  was  risen  from  the 
dead,  his  disciples  remembered  .  .  . 
and  they  believed  the  scripture. 
.  .  .  When  Jesus  was  glorified, 
then  remembered  they  that  these 
things  were  written  of  him.  .  .  . 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of 
the  Lord." 


92  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Thus  the  word  may  remain  a  dead  letter  until  ex- 
perience gives  it  vitality  and  force  and  claim.  In 
the  interpretation  of  many  Scriptures,  Experience  is 
the  efficient  scholarship.  We  know  the  twenty-third 
Psalm  because  our  souls  have  passed  through  it  line 
by  line.  We  do  not  supersede  grammar;  we  pass 
into  a  region  it  cannot  enter.  I  venture  to  think 
that  if  we  read  the  Scriptures  in  the  light  of  experi- 
ence and  history  many  an  obscure  or  forgotten  pas- 
sage would  become  expressive  and  prophetic.  We 
should  be  startled  into  many  an  exclamation.  His- 
tory is  the  amplification  of  Scripture.  Experience 
is  the  corroboration  of  the  Bible.  "  Then  remem- 
bered they  "  !  "  When  he  was  risen  from  the  dead, 
his  disciples  remembered  "  !  So  it  is  with  ourselves. 
Memory  is  awakened  within  us  every  day.  Deeds 
we  had  forgotten  stand  out  in  radiance.  Words 
little  heeded  at  the  time  have,  years  afterward,  given 
up  their  secret  as  the  sea  gives  up  its  dead.  Some 
texts  are  for  the  far-off  centuries  to  explain.  The 
explanation  of  other  passages  we  shall  find  in 
heaven. 

Meanwhile  what  is  to  be  our  attitude  in  relation 


THE   ORIGINS. 


93 


to  Christian  scholarship?  It  is  to  me  very  pitiable 
that  the  Christian  scholar  has  so  often  to  fight  his 
way  into  recognition,  all  the  while  being  suspected 
and  distrusted  by  many  people  who  have  not  a 
shadow  of  a  right  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  him.  It 
is  also  not  a  little  discomforting  that  doctrines  which 
have  in  England  fought  their  way  into  popularity 
are  to-day  the  occasion  of  almost  martyrdom  to 
some  eminent  leaders  in  America.  Forty  years  ago 
men  were  expelled  from  professorial  chairs  in  Eng- 
land for  laying  down  dogmas  and  suggestions  which 
men  then  unborn  are  now  preaching  to  influential 
and  applauding  congregations.  Christian  scholar- 
ship has  no  other  wish  than  to  know  the  truth  and 
to  make  it  known.  By  all  means  let  it  be  watched ; 
by  all  means  hold  on  to  the  old  until  the  new  has 
been  proved ;  at  the  same  time  make  ample  room  for 
Christian  learning,  and  give  our  scholars  to  feel  that 
we  expect  them  to  be  thorough  and  independent. 
Any  Bible  that  can  be  stolen  from  us  is  not  worth 
keeping.  If  we  hold  revelation  in  the  letter  only, 
it  may  be  corrupted  by  the  moths,  or  thieves  may 
break  through  and  steal;  but  if  we  hold  it  in  the 
spirit,  if  the  heart  knows  and  loves  the  meaning  of 


94 


NONE  LIKE  IT. 


the  Word,  we  shall  be  safe  in  a  great  fortress,  we 
shall  feed  on  the  bread  of  heaven.  On  the  other 
hand,  scholars  must  continually  assure  us  of  their 
well-defined  and  inexpansible  limitations,  knowing 
well  that  at  many  a  point  on  the  sacred  way  they 
must  put  off  the  sandals  of  grammar  and  lexicon, 
and  stand  before  God  in  the  nakedness  and  humilia- 
tion of  absolute  Necessity.  This  they  know  right 
well,  and  so  long  as  they  work  in  the  spirit  of  that 
knowledge  they  must  be  held  in  honor  and  in  rev- 
erence. Be  the  Bible  what  it  may,  we  owe  it  to 
scholarship.  Let  us  not  smite  the  hand  which  has 
reaped  and  garnered  our  largest  harvests.  No  one 
knows  so  well  as  the  scholar  himself  that  he  can  do 
little  or  nothing  with  the  first  verse  in  the  Bible. 
Its  main  words  stand  infinitely  out  of  reach  of  his 
apparatus.  As  the  heaven  is  high  above  the  earth, 
so  is  the  word  GOD  above  all  other  words.  We  can 
approach  God  only  at  the  lower  end  of  his  ways — 
the  whispering  of  his  strength — less  than  an  echo  of 
the  thunder  of  his  power.  Even  when  he  clothes 
himself  with  the  universe  his  figure  cannot  be  de- 
scried— even  in  history  there  is  a  tumult  rather  than 


THE  ORIGINS. 


95 


a  presence — even  in  Christ  the  mystery  is  not  lost. 
In  thinking  of  God  we  have  been  compelled  to  think 
of  him  under  the  conditions  of  Personality.  The 
Bible  itself  so  represents  him.  What  personality 
means  who  can  definitely  and  finally  say  ?  Is  it  only 
a  symbol  to  start  from?  Is  it  an  indefinable  term? 
Are  we,  notwithstanding  all  our  claims  and  boasts 
and  ambitions,  mere  outlines  of  personality,  with  just 
too  little  of  its  quality  to  know  anything  of  its  fullest 
meaning?  Personality  is  a  term  we  must  not  strain 
too  much.  If  we  use  it  aright,  it  will  help  us  a  little 
here  and  there ;  but  if  we  overstrain  it,  possibly  it 
may  become  the  precipice  narrowly  separating  be- 
tween us  and  destruction.  When  we  connect  it  with 
what  we  know  of  life,  intelligence,  and  sympathy,  it 
may  be  most  helpful.  But  these  words  themselves 
require  definition.  Life  is  as  mysterious  a  word  as 
God.  What  is  intelligence  but  a  dimly  lighted  line 
lying  between  ignorance  and  omniscience?  And 
sympathy  is  love  in  action.  But  what  is  low  ? 
What?  Thus  we  are  always  kept  outside — outside 
of  our  very  selves;  half-interpreters  of  our  own 
words,  self-menders,  apologizing  to  ourselves  to-day 


96  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

for  having  mistaken  or  misled  ourselves  yesterday. 
In  this  condition  of  things  we  are  thankful  for  all 
the  aid  of  learning,  yet  we  feel  that  outside  of  it, 
above  it,  beyond  it  far,  are  many  things  which  can 
only  be  "spiritually  discerned." 


IV. 

THE   LIVING   WORD. 

THAT  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  is  a  fact 
supported  by  other  evidence  than  that  of  the 
New  Testament.  Here  we  are  not  dealing  with 
mythology,  but  with  history.  Then  let  us  raise  the 
question — 

Why  did  Jesus  Christ  come  into  the  World  ? 

Some  say  that  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world 
that  he  might  reveal  the  Father;  others,  that  he 
might  show  us  an  Example ;  others,  that  he  revealed 
himself  as  the  head  of  the  race;  some,  that  he  might 
prove  in  his  own  blameless  and  hallowed  life  the 
possible  perfectness  and  obedience  of  self-sacrifice. 
He  showed  how  self-will  might  be  overcome.  He 
was  the  supreme  Virtue.  He  was  the  ideal  Man. 
In  him  all  human  excellence  culminated,     All  these 

97 


98  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

answers  I  reject  simply  on  the  ground  of  insuffi- 
ciency. To  my  mind  they  do  not  rise  higher  than 
the  level  of  personal  opinions.  They  are  not  reve- 
lations ;  they  are  not  even  audacious  guesses ;  the 
answers  are  not  of  the  quality  of  the  question.  The 
only  sufficing  answers  that  I  know  of  are  in  the  New 
Testament.  Modern  inspiration  may  have  discov- 
ered them  to  be  wrong,  yet  I  receive  them  after 
asking  to  be  guided  by  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  Here 
they  are: 

"  He  was  manifested  to  take 
away  our  sins." — I  John  iii.  5. 

"  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of 
God  was  manifested,  that  he  might 
destroy  the  works  of  the  devil." 
— 1  John  iii.  8. 

"  The  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world." — John 
i.  29. 

"  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the 
world  to  save  sinners." — 1  Tim. 
i.  15. 

The  Son  of  man  is  come  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
lost." — Luke  xix.  10. 

We  feel  at  once  that  these  are  not  mere  opinions, 
nor  hesitant  guesses,  nor  such  answers  as  any  mere 


THE  LIVING    WORD. 


99 


man  outside  the  election  of  grace  could  have  given. 
If  they  are  wrong,  they  are  the  sublimest  mistakes 
in  history.  To  bring  the  personality  of  Christ  within 
the  compass  of  our  opinion  would  be  a  profane  im- 
pertinence. Once  Jesus  Christ  himself  showed  how 
impossible  it  was  for  mere  opinion  to  compass  the 
magnitude  of  his  Personality.  "  Whom  do  men  say 
that  I  the  Son  of  man  am?"  This  was  a  challenge 
to  Opinion  to  do  its  best.  It  was  a  magnificent 
opportunity.  Having  heard  all  that  Opinion  could 
do  by  way  of  criticism,  Christ  inquired,  "  But  whom 
say  ye  that  I  am  ?  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and 
said,  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
That  was  the  answer  of  Revelation.  Christ  instantly 
and  as  it  were  exultantly  accepted  it. as  such.  For 
that  reason  I  would  humbly  go  to  Revelation  for  all 
my  answers.  Opinion  has  mocked  me :  Revelation 
has  filled  my  soul  with  light  and  joy.  It  is  assuredly 
profitable  for  doctrine.  The  answers  which  have 
just  been  quoted  are  so  clear  as  to  make  it  evident 
that  but  for  sin  we  should  not  have  known  Christ 
after  the  flesh — in  the  manner  of  what  we  now  call 
the  Incarnation.  We  owe  Jesus  to  sin.  But  what 
is  sin  ?     It  is  a  familiar  word  in  the  New  Testament, 


IOO  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Without  it  such  a  Testament  would  have  been  im- 
possible. Yet  Jesus  himself  hardly  ever  used  the 
word,  perhaps  never  in  exactly  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  apostles  used  it.  In  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  it  would  be  substantially  true  to  say  that  sin 
is  a  word  hardly  named  at  all.  In  John  the  term 
does  occur  a  few  times,  but  hardly  in  the  Pauline 
sense.  Yet  Jesus  was  manifested  to  take  away  our 
sins!  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  mani- 
fested! Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners ! 

What  is  sin?  Let  us  regard  it  as  disobedience, 
violation  of  law,  revolt  from  God,  self-will,  self-in- 
dulgence, each  of  these,  all  of  these,  even  more  than 
all.  It  is  easier  to  feel  what  sin  is  than  to  say  what 
it  is.  A  possible  difficulty  may  be  thus  stated :  As 
sin  is  a  spiritual  offense,  why  not  overcome  it  by 
spiritual  means?  Why  an  incarnation,  a  crucifixion, 
a  blood-offering,  a  resurrection?  Does  the  remedy 
lie  along  the  same  line  as  the  disease?  As  the 
offense  was  moral,  should  not  the  remedial  agency 
be  moral  also?     It  is  characteristic  of  the  greatest 


THE  LINING   WORD.  ioi 

questions  that  they  cannot  be  wholly  answered.  It 
is  especially  characteristic  of  the  Bible  that  its  events 
bring  their  own  explanation.  No  book  calls  for  so 
much  retrospect  as  the  Bible.  Other  books  can 
explain  themselves  at  every  point  of  their  own  prog- 
ress, but  the  Bible  explains  in  one  century  what  it 
said  in  another.  Its  very  revelations  are  enigmas 
until  the  answrers  come.  This  was  made  very  clear 
by  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  after  his  resurrection 
began  at  Moses  and  the  prophets  and  all  the  Script- 
ures, and  expounded  to  the  dejected  disciples  the 
things  concerning  himself.  Why  could  they  not 
read  them  intelligently  for  themselves?  There  was 
the  writing,  why  did  they  not  read  it  and  grasp  its 
meaning?  When  Jesus  Christ  expounded  the  Script- 
ures, he  re- wrote  them.  He  is  still  their  one  Ex- 
positor. The  Bible  is  a  sealed  book  to  the  oldest 
and  wisest  of  men  until  it  is  opened  by  the  Lion  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah.  Thus  the  Bible  is  not  to  be 
compared  with  other  books.  Its  meaning  does  not 
come  through  criticism,  but  through  spiritual  illumi- 
nation;  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  The  reason  of  the  In- 
carnation, then,  must  be  found  in  the  events  which 


102  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

accompanied  and  followed  it — in  the  events  which 
may  be  happening  in  our  own  day — in  the  present 
facts  of  our  own  experience. 

The  Incarnation  of  Christ  was  the  -  divine  answer 
to  another  incarnation.  Sin  had  already  clothed 
itself  with  flesh.  It  had  made  itself  visible  above 
all  other  spectacles.  It  had  darkened  the  whole 
sky.  There  is  no  doubt  about  this  degraded  incar- 
nation— sin  had  poisoned  the  very  blood,  and  shamed 
the  heavens  with  wantonness.  Christ,  then,  had  not 
to  address  himself  to  a  metaphysical  or  transcendental 
difficulty — a  spiritual  tragedy  which  had  not  come 
into  the  sphere  of  words  and  deeds — something  liv- 
ing far  back  in  the  soul,  as  a  specter  hardly  assured 
of  its  own  existence.  That  was  not  the  problem. 
The  world  was  lying  in  the  wicked  one.  It  was  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of  iniquity.  Here 
is  an  insight  into  its  condition : 

"  When  they  knew  God 
they  glorified  him  not  as 
God,  neither  were  thank- 
ful ;  but  became  vain  in 
their  imaginations,  and 
their    foolish     heart    was 


THE  LINING   WORD.  103 

darkened.  Professing 
themselves  to  be  wise 
they  became  fools.  And 
changed  the  glory  of  the 
uncorruptible  God  into 
an  image  made  like  to 
corruptible  man,  and  to 
birds  and  to  four-footed 
beasts  and  creeping  things. 
They  were  filled  with  all 
unrighteousness,  fornica- 
tion, wickedness,  covet- 
ousness,  maliciousness; 
full  of  envy,  murder,  de- 
bate, deceit,  malignity ; 
whisperers,  backsliders, 
haters  of  God." 


That  was  the  problem!  That  was  the  first  in- 
carnation! Then  was  Jesus  born  in  Bethlehem  of 
Judea,  and  the  people  that  sat  in  darkness  saw  a 
great  light. 

If,  then,  we  want  a  definition  of  sin,  we  must  read 
its  own  history  and  thus  study  its  own  incarnations. 
It  is  not  an  etymological  term ;  it  is  a  bitter  experi- 
ence. To  the  intellect  sin  may  be  little  more  than 
a  word  more  or  less  indicative  of  some  superficial  or 
temporary  flaw,  slip,  irregularity,  or  mischance :   to 


104  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  heart  which  has  seen  its  first  vision  of  holiness,  it 
is  everything  that  can  be  typified  by  the  word  "  hell  " 
— it  is  the  abominable  thing  which  God  hates — it  is 
a  blasphemy  which  disdains  the  portrayal  of  words. 
There  must  be  a  vision  of  sin  as  well  as  a  vision  of 
holiness.  They  have  reciprocal  effects.  We  must 
see  ourselves  before  we  can  see  God :  we  must  see 
God  in  order  to  see  ourselves.  This  is  a  difficulty 
in  words,  yet  the  heart  knows  the  answer  to  the  rid- 
dle. But  how  can  there  be  sin  if  man  is  an  evolu- 
tion rather  than  a  creation?  Has  he  not  come  up 
through  all  the  countless  ages  higher  and  higher, 
glorious  with  ever-brightening  splendor?  If  we  say 
Yes,  we  do  not  disprove  the  Bible  account,  we  may 
only  illustrate  it.  Even  science  may  be  confronted 
by  practice,  and  compelled  to  pay  some  attention  to 
commonplace.  We  ourselves  are  the  best  answers 
to  the  evolution  which  flatters  us.  Let  us  talk  the 
matter  out  quite  frankly: — We  have  come  up  from 
the  lowest  form  of  life ;  we  have  outgrown  many 
signs  of  early  degradation ;  we  have,  through  mill- 
ions of  ages,  passed  from  beasthood  to  manhood; 
we  can  think,  speak,  act ;  quite  true ;  but  does  it  fol- 
low that  we  cannot  sin?     Can  we  not  bite  and  de- 


THE  LIVING   WORD.  105 

vour  one  another?  Is  murder  impossible?  Is  false- 
hood beyond  our  reach  ?  If  we  can  do  wrong,  when 
did  we  begin  to  do  it?  Why  did  we  begin  to  do  it? 
When  did  we  become  conscious  of  it  ?  If  it  is  a  part 
of  a  great  Necessity,  why  do  we  punish  it?  Why 
not  tolerate  it  in  others?  Why  complain  of  it?  If 
it  is  point  in  progress,  why  chafe  under  it,  resent  it, 
condemn  it,  and  load  it  with  penalty?  The  Christian 
contention  is  that  at  whatever  point  man  did  wrong, 
at  that  point  he  needed  divine  interposition.  There 
must  have  been  a  moment  when  man  became  a  re- 
sponsible agent,  whether  he  was  developed  or  created, 
the  proof  being  that  he  is  now,  at  all  events,  a  re- 
sponsible agent,  and  the  argument  is  that  when  he 
became  a  responsible  agent  he  did  something  which 
affected  his  own  moral  standing  and  history.  That 
something  we  call  Sin.  That  something  called  Sin 
Christ  was  manifested  to  destroy,  to  take  away,  to 
forgive.     Evolution  is  a  theory :  Sin  is  a  fact. 

It  was  to  the  fact  of  Sin  that  Christ  immediately 
addressed  himself.  He  began  to  preach,  and  to  say 
Repent.  That  was  his  first  sermon.  The  keynote 
was  full  of  significance.      "  Repent,"  pronounced  by 


106  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

such  lips,  was  a  condensed  statement  of  the  world's 
condition.  "  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand," 
was  Christ's  way  of  announcing  his  own  Personality. 
He  was  himself  that  kingdom  and  its  King.  In 
this  business  of  sin-destruction  the  earth  needs  the 
heavens.  The  action  is  spiritually  astronomic.  The 
motive  or  the  reason  must  come  from  above,  not  to 
terrify  by  its  dignity,  but  to  sustain  and  redeem  by 
its  sufficiency.  Hence  the  mingled  tragedy  and 
glory  of  that  opening  call — 

"  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 

Then  came  the  miracles,  saying  the  same  thing  in 
another  language.  They  were  full  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  in  its  tender,  domestic,  healing  aspect. 
They  were  gospels  for  the  body.  But  not  for  the 
body  only,  only  for  the  body  as  an  entrance  to  the 
soul.  It  was  the  inner  vision  Christ  wanted  to  open 
when  he  healed  the  blindness  of  the  body.  The 
leprous  flesh  was  cleansed  that  a  way  might  be 
found  to  the  leprous  soul.  After  the  sermon  and 
the  miracles  came  the  cross,  repeating  the  same 
mystery  of  thought  and  recovery,  but  with  a  pathos 


THE  LI VI N G   WORD.  \oj 

unique  and  ineffable.  The  cross  cannot  be  explained. 
To  nail  our  poor  theories  on  that  tree  but  shows  how 
our  love  has  cooled  and  stiffened  and  expired.  It  is 
a  mystery  as  a  fact ;  it  is  a  mystery  as  an  explana- 
tion. Yet  a  mystery  which  communes  with  the 
heart  and  fills  it  with  unutterable  joy ;  a  twilight 
mystery ;  the  password  of  the  evening  breeze,  on 
which  the  Lord  ever  comes  to  Eden ;  a  mystery 
better  known  through  tears  than  through  speech, 
yet  that  may  be  known  in  a  way  no  words  can  ex- 
plain. We  must  not  think  of  it  as  too  dazzling  to 
be  useful,  but  as  too  tender  to  be  rejected.  I  would 
only  remove  the  mystery  from  the  cold  intellect  that 
I  might  transfer  it  to  the  glowing  heart. 

But  the  cross  is  associated  with  blood.  Yes.  We 
must  not  set  up  our  refinement  against  Christ's 
agony.  Let  us  warn  our  very  souls  against  the 
shameful  affectation  of  being  more  appalled  by  the 
blood  than  by  the  sin.  A  very  wonderful  thing  this 
is  that  man  should  have  become  so  refined  as  to 
shrink  from  blood  and  yet  be  able  to  speak  of  sin  as 
if  it  shocked  no  feeling.  Thus  we  deceive  ourselves. 
We  pretend  to  sink  the  sinner  in  the  gentleman  when 


108  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

we  stand  before  the  cross.  This  may  be  the  deepest 
depth  of  infatuation.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must 
not  think  of  blood  only,  but  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 
Nor  of  the  blood  of  Christ  only,  but  of  "  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ" — the  very  word  being  twice  qual- 
ified, and  thus  raised  out  of  common  thought  into 
regions  of  dignity  and  holiness.  The  last  of  Christ's 
miracles  before  the  resurrection  was  to  turn  his  own 
blood  into  wine.  That  blood  lay  beyond  the  reach 
of  Roman  spear.  That  blood  did  not  fall  upon  the 
earth  and  waste  itself  in  the  dust.  Corruptible  gold 
could  have  bought  corruptible  redemption,  but  we 
have  come  by  faith  to  know  that  we  "  are  not  re- 
deemed with  corruptible  things." 

When  we  sink  into  the  humiliation  which  alone 
befits  our  sense  of  sin — when  we  abhor  ourselves  in 
dust  and  ashes — the  thing  above  all  other  things  that 
we  do  not  want  is  an  Example.  After  redemption 
we  need  it,  but  not  before.  To  preach  to  me  the 
fact  and  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Example  when  I 
am  stung  through  and  through  with  experiences  of 
my  sin  is  simply  to  mock  me.  It  is  to  oppose  to 
me  an  infinite  sneer.     I  then  want  a  Saviour,  not  an 


THE  LIVING   WORD.  109 

Example.  I  want  salvation,  not  rebuke.  Do  not  say 
to  me,  See  in  Christ  an  instance  of  self-sacrifice  and 
loving  obedience,  but  say  to  me,  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world. 
Bring  down  your  gospel  to  the  pit  of  my  helpless- 
ness. Tell  angels  of  examples,  but  to  the  sinner 
preach  a  Saviour.  And  that  Saviour  must  have  in 
his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails  and  in  his  side  the 
wound  of  the  spear.  I  must  see  them  and  feel  them 
by  faith.  The  redness  of  his  apparel  must  proclaim 
his  quality.  He  must  not  come  to  me  in  the  snow 
of  his  holiness,  but  in  the  crimson  of  his  sacrifice. 
The  shame  of  my  sin  can  bear  the  sight  of  his  blood. 
This  would  be  ecstasy  but  for  the  humiliation  and 
the  sorrow  of  my  soul.  My  contrition  takes  it  out 
of  the  rank  of  romance  and  sets  it  at  the  head  of 
facts.  As  the  cross  is  the  one  way  to  heaven,  so 
conscious  sin  is  the  one  way  to  the  cross.  To  the 
intellect  it  is  foolishness,  to  pride  it  is  a  stumbling- 
block,  but  to  broken-heartedness  and  self-helpless- 
ness it  is  the  very  power  and  love  and  glory  of  God. 

The   heart  has  many  moods,  and   the  aspects  of 
Christ  and    his   work   must    be   various   enough    to 


1 10  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

meet  them  all.  Science  is  for  experts ;  the  cross  is 
for  sinners.  As  the  world  is  many,  so  the  heart  itself 
is  many.  It  must  be  met  in  every  experience,  es- 
pecially in  its  agony  on  account  of  sin.  The  tempta- 
tion of  the  expert  is  to  write  for  experts.  He  can- 
not easily  change  his  apparatus.  He  talks  to  his 
peers,  or  to  those  who  may  become  his  peers, 
through  long  training  and  much  acquisition.  But 
the  evangelist  talks  to  the  common  heart,  speaking 
to  every  man  of  the  wonderful  works  of  God  in  the 
tongue  wherein  the  man  was  born.  This  is  the  great 
translation.  This  is  the  pentecostal  miracle.  Thus, 
instead  of  emptying  the  gospel  message  out  of  one 
language  into  another,  God  the  Holy  Ghost  enables 
every  man  who  has  received  the  gift  of  life  to  tell 
the  gospel  story  in  the  only  truly  original  language 
of  living  and  definite  experience.  Grammar  is  not 
excluded ;  it  is  subordinated.  The  expert  and  the 
evangelist  should  work  together.  In  this  connection 
the  point  is  that  Christ's  work  should  appeal  to  every 
mood  of  the  heart,  and  that  to  exclude  the  evangel- 
ical view  of  that  work  is  to  leave  the  heart  without 
comfort  or  hope  in  its  bitterest  desolation.  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  the  world  is  full  of  experts  who 


THE  LIVING    WORD.  \  \  \ 

are  only  waiting  for  a  rectified  record  in  order  to 
become  Christians.  We  must  not  imagine  that  the 
question  of  dates  is  standing  between  men  and  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins.  Such  questions  are  by  no 
means  unimportant,  yet  there  are  other  questions 
which  infinitely  transcend  them  in  urgency.  Take 
this  case :  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  I  have 
sinned  against  heaven  with  an  outstretched  arm :  by 
day  I  have  no  light  and  by  night  no  rest  because  of 
the  pain  and  shame  of  self-reproach :  I  dare  not  look 
toward  God  in  his  righteousness :  I  am  hopeless, 
helpless,  desolate. — What  is  the  answer  to  the  con- 
dition faintly  indicated  by  these  confessions?  for  be 
it  always  understood  that  such  agony  has  no  ad- 
equate speech.  I  have  always  found  that  the  best 
answer  is  the  cross,  and  that  the  reply  of  the  cross 
is  this: 

1.  Jesus  Christ  came  expressly  to 
meet  such  cases. 

2.  That  Jesus  Christ  did  something 
for  the  sinner  which  the  sinner 
could  never  do  for  himself. 
What  that*  something  is  no 
words  can  fully  tell. 

3.  That  Jesus  Christ  tasted  death 
for  every  man, 


112  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

4.  That  where  sin  abounded  grace 
did  much  more  abound. 

5.  That  Christ  is  able  to  save  unto 
the  uttermost. 

These  are  the  great  evangelical  replies,  and  by  them 
the  sincerity  of  the  inquirer  may  be  tested  beyond 
doubt.  Broken-heartedness  on  account  of  personal 
sin  will  never  chafe  under  such  gracious  and  heal- 
ing counsel.  These  replies  are  greater  than  literal 
criticism.  They  are  spiritual  answers  to  a  spiritual 
condition.  They  express  the  majesty  and  the  pathos 
of  the  crucified  Christ.  There  are  moments  in  the 
soul's  suffering  when  that  word 

CRUCIFIED 

shines  with  the  glory  of  an  immediate  revelation. 
It  represents  the  tenderest  love  of  God.  It  bruises 
the  serpent's  head. 

Have  we  not  some  hints  of  deeper  meanings  in 
the  case  of  common  human  suffering?  Here  is  one 
mourning  for  his  firstborn,  and  will  not  be  com- 
forted. The  life  so  lonely,  the  grave  so  deep  and 
cold,  the  farewell  so  long;  the  poor  heart  cannot 
bear  it ;  faith  totters  under  a  mortal  blow ;  the  very 


THE  LINING   WORD.  \  \  3 

soul  is  almost  turned  into  desperate  blasphemy. 
Who  amongst  us  can  touch  that  agony — who  dare 
speak  to  such  sacred  woe  ?  Can  the  physiologist 
calm  the  heart  by  his  science  ?  Can  the  physician 
recall  the  vanished  joy  by  some  professional  state- 
ment? Who,  then,  can  find  the  door  of  the  sanctu- 
ary ?  Only  one  who  has  suffered  a  kindred  loss. 
One  who  has  been  crucified.  One  who  knows  the 
password  of  grief.  Sorrow  must  speak  to  sorrow. 
Wound  must  speak  to  wound.  So  with  the  deeper 
agonies.  We  have  not  an  high-priest  that  cannot 
be  touched.  He  lays  his  wounds  on  ours — he  heals 
us  with  his  blood. 

This  can  hardly  be  explained  in  words.  Perhaps 
we  may  find  it  convenient  at  this  point — face  to  face 
as  we  are  with  such  unfathomable  words  as  Sin  and 
Blood — to  make  up  our  minds  to  some  working  es- 
timate of  the  limit  and  function  of  Explanation  as 
applied  to  Christian  mysteries.  For  my  own  guid- 
ance, personally  and  pastorally,  I  have  laid  down  a 
few  governing  principles.     Thus : 

1.  The  human  can  never  fully 
grasp  or  realize  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  divine. 


114  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

2.  The  inability  of  the  human  to 
grasp  the  whole  meaning  of  the 
divine  is  not  a  humiliation  but 
a  necessity  and  a  discipline. 

3.  To  insist  upon  the  literal  and 
exhaustive  explanation  of  spirit- 
ual mysteries  is  one  of  the  most 
deceitful  impulses  -of  intellectual 
vanity. 

4.  Every  attempt  to  bring  spiritual 
mysteries  within  purely  intel- 
lectual apprehension  is  to  en- 
croach upon  the  function  of  the 
heart  as  the  best  interpreter  of 
God. 

5.  Obedience  to  the  divine  will  is 
the  primary  condition  of  know- 
ing all  that  is  knowable  of  the 
divine  doctrine. 

Within  the  range  of  these  principles  I  have 
escaped  the  frets  and  disappointments  inseparable 
from  fruitless  ambitions,  and  in  that  degree  have 
been  enabled  to  bring  undivided  attention  to  bear  in 
legitimate  directions.  They  have,  too,  if  I  may  con- 
tinue to  be  personal,  had  a  useful  effect  upon  all 
my  endeavors  after  what  is  called  definite  religious 
teaching.  I  have  lived  to  know  that  we  can  be  as 
definite  in  declaring  a  mystery  as  in  stating  a  fact. 


THE  LINING   WORD.  \  \  5 

The  soul  may  be  a  long  time  in  coming  to  the  ap- 
prehension of  that  possibility.  The  mystery  is  itself 
a  fact.  We  have  to  walk  under  the  sky,  not  over  it. 
We  have  to  worship  God,  not  to  understand  him. 
The  honest  teacher  will  never  be  ashamed  to  say,  "  I 
do  not  know."  He  must  often  say  so,  and  at  these 
points,  marked  against  trespass,  he  and  his  students 
will  unite  in  common  prayer,  and  temptation  may 
be  resisted  by  fasting.  We  cannot  be  as  definite  in 
the  statement  or  even  in  the  apprehension  of  spirit- 
ual truth — the  truth  which  is  without  form — as  in 
the  statement  of  scientific  facts,  for  reasons  which  lie 
within  the  facts  themselves.  Science  concerns  itself 
with  phenomena,  with  the  measurable,  the  ascer- 
tainable, the  concrete,  and  when  it  gets  to  the  limit 
of  phenomena  it  stops,  lest  it  should  stumble  upon 
a  religion.  With  what  does  religion  concern  itself? 
With  God  and  sin  and  motive,  with  redemption,  for- 
giveness, character,  destiny.  Science  can  make  all  . 
the  words  it  wants  for  the  telling  of  its  wondrous 
tale;  but  religion  is  always  short  of  words,  and  so  is 
driven  into  exclamations  and  impetuosities  which  lit- 
eralists  easily  mistake  for  cant.  It  cries  out,  Who 
can  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection?     Who 


Il6  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

hath  directed   the   Spirit  of  the   Lord,  or  being  his 
counselor  hath  taught  him?     Oh  the  depth  of  the 
riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God! 
How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways 
past  finding  out!      Whether  in  the  body  or  out  of 
the  body,  the  spiritual  man  is  often  quite  uncertain, 
and  as  for  the  things  he  hears  in  the  higher  places — 
the    subdued   thunders,    the   thrilling   whispers,   the 
weird  beating  of  unseen  wings,  the  inscriptions  in 
half-lightning   and    in    half-gloom  —  he    says,    such 
communings  and  visions  are  not  for  words,  they  are 
for  the  heart's  mute  wonder.     In  religion  there  are 
few  things  we  can  fitly  tell.     Religion  can  sometimes 
do  little  more  than  hint  at  its  own  secret.     We  can 
measure  the  altar,  but  not  the  prayer.     We  can  tell 
all  about  the  Roman  gallows,  but  language  is  hushed 
and  awed  before  the  Christian  cross.     The  crucifix- 
ion is  Roman ;  the  Atonement  is  divine.     We  know 
it  and  receive  it  and  trust  it  expressly  in  its  char- 
acter as  a  mystery.     It  must  not  be  supposed  that 
because  it  is  a  mystery  we  do  not  know  it.      Forget- 
ting that  a  doctrine  may  be  received  as  a  mystery, 
we  confuse  all  the  higher  truths  and  put  them  in  a 
false  relation.     It  is  a  high  attainment  of  knowledge 


THE  LINING   WORD.  117 

to  know  that  some  things  cannot  be  known.  It  is 
just  at  that  point  that  the  divine  faculty  for  which 
the  best  name  is  Faith  begins  its  unique  work  in  the 
soul.  Faith  does  no  commerce  in  the  small  market 
of  explanations.  Faith  has  infinite  ventures  on  the 
seas  and  continents  of  mystery.  It  is  the  substance 
of  things  hoped  for;  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen. 
Thus  we  stand  in  a  great  mystery.  Sin  and  Atone- 
ment, Law  and  Forgiveness,  Holiness  and  Destiny, 
are  mysteries.  We  hold  them  in  Christian  faith :  all 
we  know  about  them  we  learned  from  a  Book  which 
has  taken  such  hold  of  our  highest  nature  that  we 
have  come  to  regard  it  reverently  as 

THE   WORD    OF    GOD. 


V. 

THE   WORD   TAUGHT. 

IT  is  supposed  that  Science  is  definite  and  that 
Religion  is  vague  in  its  dogmas.  This  supposed 
difference  has  sometimes  been  the  occasion  of  a 
taunt  against  the  Christian  faith  in  particular.  It  is 
said  with  no  little  truth  that  the  heterodoxy  of  one  day- 
is  the  orthodoxy  of  another.  Yet  this  need  not  be 
any  reproach.  The  fact  would  be  the  more  remark- 
able if  its  application  could  be  strictly  limited  to 
religion,  whereas  it  applies  equally  to  the  whole  line 
of  civilization,  and  may  therefore  be  only  a  fact  be- 
cause it  is  first  a  principle.  We  may  not  be  dealing 
with  an  accident ;  we  may  be  face  to  face  with  a  law, 
and  with  a  law  so  universal  and  so  urgent  as  to  be 
the  very  soul  of  civilization.  If  it  is  true  of  religion 
(and  I  am  not  prepared  to  doubt  it)  that  the  het- 
erodoxy of  yesterday  is  the  orthodoxy  of  to-day,  it 

118 


THE   WORD   TAUGHT.  119 

is  certainly  true  of  science  and  philosophy  that  the 
knowledge  of  one  century  is  the  ignorance  of  the 
next.  Civilization  is  a  process  of  self-correction,  yet 
civilization  is  inspired  by  one  unchanging  purpose. 
Religion  may  be  perpetually  changing  its  forms  and 
re-adapting  its  appliances,  yet  its  central  truth  is 
eternal  and  immutable.  Prayers  may  vary,  but  wor- 
ship is  constant.  It  may  be  worth  while,  however, 
to  examine  the  plea  that  there  is  more  definiteness 
or  certainty  on  the  side  of  science  than  on  the  side 
of  religion. 

Where  shall  we  find  this  definiteness?  Is  it  to  be 
found  in  the  history  of  Medicine,  taking  that  term  in 
its  largest  meaning  ?  An  Egyptian  king,  as  far  back 
as  the  first  Egyptian  dynasty,  is  said  to  have  written 
a  work  upon  Anatomy.  Where  is  it  ?  Is  that  work 
consulted  to-day?  Hippocrates  has  a  great  name  as 
a  father  of  medicine  and  a  founder  of  science,  yet  his 
biographer  says  that  Hippocrates  knew  nothing  of 
anatomy,  and  was  absolutely  ignorant  of  the  relation 
which  subsists  between  the  vital  parts  of  the  human 
frame.  Galen,  the  head  of  the  Roman  science  of  his 
day,  laughed  at  all  the  medical  sects  and  refused  to 


120  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

join  any  of  them,  preferring  the  wisdom  and  the  lib- 
erty of  eclecticism.  But  is  it  possible  that  there  are 
these  medical  sects?  Surely  all  medical  men,  being 
men  of  science,  are  agreed?  There  are  allopaths 
and  homeopaths  and  hydropaths  and  electropaths 
and  herbalists,  but  they  all  live  together  in  happy 
and  beneficent  cooperation,  because  science  is  defi- 
nite and  majestic  in  its  dogmas,  and  its  believers  have 
all  things  common,  neither  does  any  man  say  that 
aught  he  has  is  his  own.  They  all  say  that  saliva 
operates  chemically  upon  certain  constituents  of 
food,  but  they  all  differ  as  to  how  this  is  done.  One 
man,  called  Liebig,  has  published  a  "supposition" 
upon  the  point,  and  now  that  "  supposition "  has 
been  recognized  and  tolerated  by  science  we  may 
infer  that  some  of  its  dogmas  are  not  hopelessly 
definite.  All  living  things  inspire  the  living  air,  and 
we  are  told  that  numerous  chemical  theories  have 
attempted  to  explain  how  the  oxygen  is  removed 
from  it.  Whether  oxygen,  after  forming  an  acid, 
unites  with  the  alkalies,  or  whether  it  attaches  itself 
to  the  corpuscles  of  the  fibrin,  or  unites  with  phos- 
phorus or  fatty  matter,  we  are  told  that  the  chemists 
do  not  know,  but  by  the  time  the  next  encyclopaedia 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  12  I 

is  published  something  definite  may  have  been  found, 
and  then  the  new  dogma  will  laugh  at  the  old  one, 
until  a  newer  dogma  still  arises  to  rebuke  the  pedan- 
tic merriment.  Still,  science  would  compassionately 
recognize  religion  if  religion  would  only  make  up  its 
mind  to  stand  by  a  sworn  affidavit.  And  philoso- 
phy, too,  is  partly  under  the  ban  of  science  because 
it  will  not  definitely  say  whether  consciousness  re- 
sides in  the  brain  or  imbeds  itself  in  the  spinal 
marrow. 

But  perhaps  it  is  along  other  lines  that  the 
severity  of  definite  science  is  to  be  found.  When 
Sir  Isaac  Newton  said  that  white  light  consists  of 
seven  different  colors,  quite  a  civil  war  broke  out,  all 
the  nobodies  of  Europe  assailing  Newton,  and  even 
the  eminent  Huygens  ranged  himself  with  the  blind 
assailants,  Newton  said  that  in  the  case  of  light  it 
was  impossible  to  have  refraction  without  dispersion, 
and  vice  versa;  but  Tyndall  says  that  Newton  was 
wrong,  and  Dolland  proved  it  by  an  ingenious  com- 
bination of  his  own.  Aristotle  and  Descartes  had 
elaborated  a  philosophy  of  Nature,  but  when  New- 
ton published   his   "  Principia "  Aristotle   and  Des- 


122  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

cartes  were  no  more  heard  of,  notwithstanding  the 
definiteness  of  science.  But  John  Hutchinson  came 
along  with  another  u  Principia,"  in  which  he  displaced 
the  vacuum  of  Newton  by  the  plenum  of  Hutchin- 
son, and  to  his  own  satisfaction  demolished  the  New- 
tonian doctrine  of  gravitation.  Hutchinson  had  so 
learned  the  Hebrew  language  as  to  be  able  to  prove 
to  his  own  mind  that  the  Bible  contains  a  complete 
and  infallible  system  of  natural  history,  and  if  we 
laugh  at  Hutchinson  we  laugh  also  at  Parkhurst,  the 
lexicographer,  and  at  Dr.  Home,  Bishop  of  Norwich, 
for  they  were  both  Hutchinsonians  until  the  bishop 
came  back  to  the  Newtonian  standpoint  simply  to 
illustrate  the  possibility  of  a  backslider's  conversion 
and  to  confirm  the  infallible  certitude  of  science. 

Descartes  used  to  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  idol, 
and  to  be  ranked  with  Plato,  Aristotle,  and  Bacon ; 
yet  it  has  been  declared  that  "  the  majority  of  his 
physical  speculations  lie,  and  have  long  lain,  in  utter 
ruin,"  and  Professor  Huxley  says,  "  We  have  left 
Descartes  himself  some  way  behind  us."  Descartes 
had  a  neat  religion  thus  neatly  expressed — "  I  think, 
therefore  I  am;"  but  Huxley  strikes  out  the  "  there- 


THE   WORD   TAUGHT.  1 23 

fore,"  because,  as  he  bluntly  says,  "  it  has  no  busi- 
ness there."  Huxley  holds  that  the  necessary  out- 
come of  Descartes'  views  is  Idealism,  and  there  we 
might  have  found  a  moment's  peace  but  for  the 
appearance  of  Descartes'  great  successor,  Kant,  who 
brought  in  the  doctrine  of  Critical  Idealism,  which, 
among  other  things,  refuses,  says  Huxley,  "  to  listen 
to  the  jargon  of  more  recent  days  about  the  '  abso- 
lute'  and  all  the  other  hypostatized  adjectives." 
Behold  how  these  men  of  science  and  philosophy 
agree,  and  silence  your  religious  contentions! 
Huxley  contradicts  Descartes'  theory  of  the  motion 
of  the  blood,  Roemer  denied  his  theory  that  light 
is  transmitted  instantly  through  space,  and  Dolland, 
as  we  have  seen,  contradicted  his  view  respecting 
refraction  and  dispersion.  So  much  for  the  unanim- 
ity of  science  as  opposed  to  the  melancholy  and  be- 
wildering divisions  of  religion!  Perhaps,  however, 
it  is  in  Mathematics  that  Science  is  majestically 
and  finally  definite.  Certainty  is  the  very  soul  of 
an  Axiom.  For  example,  take  one  of  Euclid's  very 
first  definitions.  A  point  is  position  without  magni- 
tude. How  intuitively  we  perceive  the  infinite  cer- 
titude and  exquisite  definiteness  of  this  definition ! 


124  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Yet  I  now  solemnly  deny  that  there  is  one  word  of 
truth  in  it.  I  distinctly  affirm  that  position  without 
magnitude  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Position  is 
itself  magnitude.  It  may  not  be  magnitude  that  is 
measurable  by  a  foot-rule,  but  it  is  still  magnitude. 
Even  a  point  takes  up  the  place  of  some  other  point. 
Anything  that  excludes  any  other  thing  cannot  be 
said  to  be  without  magnitude.  And  if  one  point  is 
position  without  magnitude,  what  shall  be  said  of 
two  points?  Ten  times  nothing  is  nothing,  and  ten 
times  "  without "  is  "  without,"  so  what  is  true  of  the 
one  point  is  true  of  the  ten.  It  is  certain  that  you 
cannot  put  two  points  in  the  same  place.  If  you 
put  one  on  the  top  of  the  other,  it  is  still  not  in  the 
same  place.  The  magnitude  is  increased  by  height. 
Whatever  is  on  the  top  of  something  else  is  higher 
than  the  thing  on  which  it  rests.  I  therefore  deny 
the  position  of  Euclid.  And  I  must  follow  Euclid 
with  equal  denial  when  he  says  that  a  line  is  length 
without  breadth.  I  say  that  length  and  breadth  are 
inseparable.  The  breadth  may  not  be  measurable 
by  a  foot-rule,  yet  it  is  breadth  nevertheless.  And 
when  Euciid  tells  me  that  things  that  are  equal  to 
the  same  thing  are  equal  to  one  another,  I  call  for 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  125 

qualification  or  explanation  before  I  can  admit  it. 
The  fact  that  A  and  B  are  equal  to  C  makes  A  and 
B  equal  to  one  another  is  true  enough  so  long  as 
you  are  dealing  with  symbols,  but  in  complex  rea- 
soning, in  reasoning  that  affects  human  life,  there 
are  no  naked  symbols,  so,  having  got  rid  of  the  sym- 
bols, you  have  got  rid  of  the  toy-axiom.  A  ton  of 
coals  and  a  ton  of  diamonds  may  be  equal  to  a  ton 
of  feathers,  but  the  one  point  of  equality  is  in  the 
word  "ton,"  or  in  the  accident  of  mere  weight,  and 
after  that  the  inequalities  are  glaring  and  innumer- 
able, so  much  so  as  to  render  the  one  point  prac- 
tically valueless  and  contemptible.  You  will  be  ex- 
pecting me  to  deny  that  one  and  one  make  two. 
That  is  exactly  what  I  do  deny.  What  is  one? 
One  what?  And  is  "one"  possible?  Is  solitari- 
ness possible  ?  Does  it  not  sometimes  take  two  to 
make  one?  Is  not  "one"  an  assumption?  Does 
it  not  assume  the  universe?  Does  it  not  assume 
totality  ?  If  we  were  talking  the  common  language 
about  common  things,  we  need  not  go  into  these  in- 
quiries, but  that  is  exactly  what  we  are  not  talking; 
we  are  on  a  line  of  analysis  which,  like  everything 
else  in  the  universe,  goes  back  to  God. 


126       •  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Is  science  discredited  by  such  self-corrections  as 
have  been  pointed  out?  On  the  contrary.  They 
invest  it  with  the  only  authority  that  is  of  real  im- 
portance. They  show  it  to  be  alive.  At  the  same 
time  they  should  teach  it  a  wise  charity  and  pa- 
tience in  relation  to  deeper  inquiries.  What  is  it 
that  changes  in  the  evolution  of  Christian  thought? 
Only  its  forms,  its  embodiments,  its  apparatus.  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever, 
but  his  living  Church  advances  into  fuller  light  and 
acquires  a  larger  language  of  sympathy  and  love. 
Christian  teachers  might  add  to  their  best  influence 
by  admitting  that  they  are  only  growing  in  their 
knowledge  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  are  but  struggling 
with  their  first  lessons.  That,  however,  need  not 
prevent  them  dwelling  upon  the  "  things  which  are 
assuredly  believed  "  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  should  drive 
them  in  that  direction  with  fuller  gratitude  and  con- 
fidence. A  spiritual  stammerer  has  no  right  to  be 
in  the  pulpit.  In  the  pulpit  the  speaker  should  say 
what  he  does  know,  know  by  love,  know  by  experi- 
ence, know  by  prayer,  for  only  thus  can  he  feed 
the  flock  of  God.  Indefiniteness  is  not  greatness. 
Ignorance  is  not  necessary  humility.     A  preacher 


THE   IVORD   TAUGHT.  127 

should  always  be  able  to  fall  back  upon  his  own 
experience.  This  was  the  strength  of  the  Apostle 
Paul.  He  related  the  story  of  his  life ;  he  pointed 
out  where  he  was  and  wrhat  he  was  when  the  "  mar- 
velous light"  struck  him  blind;  he  dwelt  upon  the 
wondrous  interview  with  the  unseen  but  pleading 
Christ;  he  showed  how  he  came  out  of  the  great 
agony  into  the  greater  joy ;  and  men  who  listened 
were  made  to  feel  that  they  had  not  only  to  answer  an 
argument  but  to  disbelieve  and  reject  a  man.  There 
must  be  no  indefiniteness  about  character.  The  het- 
erodoxy must  never  be  moral.  Where  intellect  shades 
its  eyes,  where  eloquence  interrupts  its  fluency, 
character  must  erect  its  standard  and  boldly  illus- 
trate the  miracle  of  grace. 

Christian  hearers  themselves  need  a  hint  or  two 
upon  this  matter  of  definiteness  in  pulpit  teaching. 
They  must  realize  that  Christian  truth  is  not  a  set 
of  names  and  phrases  which  must  be  heard  in  every 
sermon  if  the  sermon  is  to  be  considered  orthodox. 
They  must  learn,  too,  that  all  those  favorite  names 
and  phrases  may  be  there,  and  the  spirit  of  the  gos- 
pel be  utterly  absent.     There  is  an  evangelical  spirit 


128  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

as  surely  as  there  is  an  evangelical  doctrine.  The 
evangelical  doctrine  without  the  evangelical  spirit  is 
the  ghastliest  of  skeletons.  Who  can  preach  about 
Gethsemane  twice  in  the  same  day  ?  Who  can  meas- 
ure the  rest  that  should  follow  a  true  recital  of  the 
story  of  Calvary  ?  To  speak  rightly  of  the  cross  is 
to  be  on  it.  Yet  we  may  speak  of  the  whole  duty 
of  life  in  the  spirit  of  the  cross.  What  is  called 
common  morality  would  thus  be  raised  to  its.  proper 
level.  We  should  then  discourse  of  secularism  in 
the  holiest  temper.  We  should  exalt  reason  until 
she  prayed  at  the  right  altar.  We  should  denounce 
crime  with  the  wrath  of  Christ's  love.  It  has  often 
been  pointed  out  that  Christ's  own  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  not  what  would  be  now  considered  evan- 
gelical. Nor  is  it,  probably,  if  we  look  at  words 
only.  But  what  is  its  spirit?  This  is  the  highest  of 
all  illustrations  of  the  point  that  a  sermon  is  not  to 
be  judged  by  its  words  only.  The  remarkable  thing 
about  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  that  Christian 
preachers  have  often  endeavored  to  explain  it  away, 
not  by  rough  attack  or  blunt  denial,  but  by  the 
kind  of  compliment  which  has  removed  its  supreme 
doctrines  from   the   rank  of  practicableness.     Thus 


THE   WORD    TAUGHT.  129 

they  have  always  made  it  ideal,  transcendental,  poetry 
to  be  admired  rather  than  prose  to  be  obeyed.  In 
this  way  they  have  taken  out  of  the  Sermon  this 
very  virtue  of  definiteness.  They  have  turned  it 
into  a  kind  of  ethical  rainbow,  quite  lovely  and  won- 
derful, a  very  miracle  of  color  and  delicacy,  but  so 
wraith-like  or  spectral  as  to  be  practically  useless. 
This  will,  of  course,  be  largely  denied,  yet  it  will 
remain  a  fact  that  the  sects  and  persons  most  zeal- 
ously resolved  to  carry  out  the  letter  of  the  Sermon 
have  been  sneered  at  or  pitied  as  fanatical  and  ec- 
centric. If  any  man  should  be  tempted  to  wonder 
whether  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  definitely  evan- 
gelical, let  him  try  to  reduce  its  precepts  to  practice, 
and  he  will  soon  cry  out  in  despair,  "  Lord,  save 
me,  or  I  perish." 

Not  only  has  Definiteness  been  called  for,  but  Sim- 
plicity has  also  been  demanded  almost  with  vehe- 
mence. Why  this  demand  for  simplicity  ?  It  is  never 
demanded  in  science.  The  want  of  it  would  seem, 
in  the  estimation  of  those  who  know  least  about  it, 
to  be  the  crowning  proof  that  at  last  we  have  reached 
a  high  point  of  civilization.      My  submission  is  that 


130  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

there  are  no  simple  propositions  in  Christian  doctrine. 
I  advance  upon  this,  and  submit  that  what  looks  like 
the  simplest  Christian  proposition  is  more  profoundly 
mysterious  than  any  proposition  or  canon  in  science. 
Take  a  proposition  in  Analytical  Geometry : 

"  If  a  circle  be  described  about 
the  axis  major,  then  ordinates  to 
the  ellipse  and  the  circle  to  the 
same  abscissa,  have  to  one  an- 
other the  proportion  of  the  axis 
minor  to  the  axis  major." 

To  the  non-mathematical  mind  this  is  an  accumu- 
lation of  mysteries.  Is  there  in  Christian  doctrine 
an  abstruser  proposition  ?  I  answer,  Yes.  If  called 
upon  to  produce  that  proposition,  I  would  instantly 

quote — 

"GOD    IS   LOVE." 

Compared  with  that  proposition,  all  the  profun- 
dities and  polysyllables  of  science  are  the  shallowest 
vulgarities.  They  appeal  to  but  one  section  of  the 
mind.  They  leave  the  heart,  the  will,  the  conscience, 
and  the  spiritual  imagination  untouched.  They  can 
be  interpreted  by  a  hired  schoolmaster.  They  are 
intellectual  recreations.  Yet,  "  God  is  love  "  is  one 
of  the  propositions  which  is  often  commented  on  as 


THE   WORD   TAUGHT.  131 

the  very  flower  and  perfection  of  simplicity !  Never- 
theless we  have  in  those  three  little  syllables  a  doc- 
trine that  goes  back  to  eternity,  that  unites  and 
interprets  the  whole  evolution  and  tragedy  of  ex- 
perience, that  invests  the  Godhead  with  personality, 
and  that  discovers  the  foundations  of  the  eternal 
throne.  "  God  is  love  "  is  the  inclusive  proposition 
— it  is  the  encyclopaedia  of  doctrine ;  it  is  the  secret 
of  the  universe.  Creation  is  there,  and  providence, 
and  redemption.  That  legend  blooms  in  every  flower 
and  glows  in  every  star;  and  it  is  working  its  way 
through  all  sin  and  pain  and  tears,  and  will  work 
until  in  a  sanctified  humanity  and  a  reconciled  uni- 
verse it  interprets  and  crowns  the  purpose  of  the 
cross. 

I  am  not  aware  that  the  word  "  simple  "  is  ever 
applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  preaching  or 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  That  is  a  remarkable 
fact.  Let  me  be  regarded  as  speaking  with  extreme 
caution  when  I  say  that  I  cannot  recall  an  instance 
in  which  the  hearers  of  Jesus  Christ  exclaimed,  "  How 
simple!"  Does  the  word  "simple"  ever  occur  in 
an  intellectual  sense  in  the  New  Testament?     Yet 


132  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

to-day  the  cry  is,  "  The  simple  gospel !  Preach  the 
simple  gospel!  Give  us  the  simple  gospel!  Trust 
to  the  simple  gospel!"  If  Christ  never  used  the 
term,  and  if  the  apostles  never  used  the  term,  would 
it  not  be  wise  to  inquire  whether  it  is  proper  for  us 
to  use  it?  "The  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ"  is  an 
expression  which  Paul  uses  in  his  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  but  it  has  no  reference  to  the  intel- 
lectual character  of  the  gospel ;  it  is,  rather,  a  moral 
term  equal  to  "  singleness  of  affection,"  a  charac- 
teristic of  "  a  chaste  virgin  " — a  heart  intense  and 
undivided.  That  Jesus  Christ  never  used  the  term 
"  simple "  may  be  inferred  from  the  popular  re- 
marks which  were  made  upon  his  preaching,  such 
as  these : 

The  people  were  astonished  at 
his  doctrine  (Matt.  vii.  28). 
They  were  all  amazed,  and  ques- 
tioned among  themselves.  .  .  . 
What  new  doctrine  is  this? 
(Mark  i.  27. )  Never  man  spake 
like  this  man  (John  vii.  46). 
They  were  astonished,  and  said, 
Whence  hath  this  man  this 
wisdom?  (Matt.  xiii.  54.)  All 
that  heard  him  were  astonished 
(Luke  ii.  47).  They  were  aston- 
ished at  his  doctrine,  for  his  word 
was  with  power  (Luke  iv.  32). 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  I  33 

There  is  nothing  here  about  simplicity.  There  is 
nothing  about  "the  simple  gospel."  It  is  supposed 
that  "  only  believe  "  is  the  simplest  of  all  exercises. 
"  Only"  does  not  mean  "simply"  in  the  sense  that 
the  act  is  one  of  ease.  Belief  is  the  supreme  miracle. 
It  is  a  condition  of  birth.  It  is  the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration. It  is  the  glorious  act  of  going  over  from 
self  to  God.  The  obvious  danger  connected  with 
the  popular  view  of  simplicity  is  that  what  is  so 
very  superficial  in  meaning  may  become  equally 
superficial  in  practice.  Men  may  thus  in  a  sense 
play  with  their  religion ;  they  can  effect  compro- 
mises ;  they  can  adopt  expedients ;  they  can  modify 
convictions ;  in  a  word,  they  can  have  a  form  of 
godliness  without  the  power  thereof.  This  kind  of 
simplicity  is  to  be  dreaded.  All  sorts  of  tares  and 
poison-seeds  may  be  sown  in  such  a  bog,  some  of 
which  may  come  to  fruitage.  Better,  infinitely  bet- 
ter, hold  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  revelation  of  God, 
that  he  came  down  from  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
that  he  is  the  incarnate  mystery  of  eternity,  and  the 
Eternal  Firstborn,  in  whom  all  life  lives  and  all  glory 
shines.  Infinitely  better,  because  when  these  sub- 
lime mysteries  enter  the  heart  and  involve  the  mind 


134  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

in  their  holy  splendors,  they  uplift  the  whole  being 
and  elevate  human  character  by  cleansing  and  en- 
nobling the  motives  out  of  which  it  proceeds. 

Yet  we  need  not  dispense  with  the  word  "  simple," 
or  ''simplicity."  It  is  a  very  significant  word  when 
opposed  to  complex  or  complexity.  Simplicity  may 
be  represented  as  a  cloth  or  web  unfolded  or  without 
folds ;  whereas  complexity  is  as  a  cloth  folded,  and 
folded  again,  and  again  folded.  Or  take  the  various 
translations  of  aTiXor/]?  given  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  rendered  simplicity  (Rom.  xii.  8),  singleness  of 
your  heart  (Eph.  vi.  5),  and  a  form  of  it  is  translated 
as  a  single  eye,  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke.  The  ref- 
erence is,  as  just  said,  to  singleness  of  affection,  a 
heart  with  one  love,  a  life  with  one  aim.  Of  that 
kind  of  simplicity  we  cannot  have  too  much,  for  it 
means  that  amidst  the  conflicts,  doubts,  questionings, 
and  wonders  which  accompany  all  vital  education 
the  loyalty  of  the  heart  to  the  glorious  Saviour  is 
steadfast  and  incorruptible.  Such  simplicity,  single- 
ness of  aim,  and  definiteness  of  love  must  ever  be 
held  to  be  a  luminous  commentary  upon  the  gospel 
itself,  which  is  thus  shown  to  be  opposed  to  all  tor- 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  I  35 

tuousness  of  mind,  all  ambiguity  of  speech,  all  crook- 
edness of  purpose,  all  doubleness  and  wavering  of 
will.  If  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  simplicity  of 
the  gospel,  then  let  it  be  magnified  and  illustrated  on 
every  hand. 

But  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things  as  an  am- 
bassador of  Christ  ?  Who  can,  who  dare,  accept  the 
responsibility  of  representing  such  definiteness  and 
such  simplicity?  Perhaps  we  may  be  enabled  to 
indicate  an  answer  by  studying  a  proposition  which 
has  been  strongly  stated  thus : 

"  Every  living  preacher  must 
receive  his  message  in  a  com- 
munication direct  from  God,  and 
the  constant  purpose  of  his  life 
must  be  to  receive  it  uncor- 
rupted,  and  to  deliver  it  without 
addition  or  subtraction." 

Unless  I  am  permitted  to  define  and  qualify  the 
proposition  I  must  not  only  reject  it,  but  do  all  in 
my  power  to  guard  others  from  accepting  it.  Un- 
derstood in  one  way — no  doubt  the  way  which  was 
clearly  before  the  author's  mind — it  may  have  the 
effect  of  bringing  the  preacher's  soul  under  a  most 


136  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

holy  discipline,  and  may  be  specially  useful  in  dis- 
couraging the  invention  of  personal  idols ;  on  the 
other  hand,  it  may  create  and  foster  and  justify  the 
very  evils  it  was  intended  to  put  down.  If  the 
proposition  is  self-complete,  it  is  wrong;  if  it  is  to  be 
read  in  the  light  of  certain  strong  and  even  vital  as- 
sumptions, it  may  be  right.  Regarded  as  self-com- 
plete, it  puts  the  individual  preacher  into  a  position 
of  exaggeration.  It  ignores  the  Bible  entirely.  It 
overlooks  the  fact  that  there  is  a  common  revelation 
— an  open  vision — a  definite  message  already  writ- 
ten and  intended  to  be  brought  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  "  every  creature."  The  world  is  not  waiting 
for  some  holy  man  to  climb  the  hill  of  God  and  bring 
down  a  new  commandment  or  beatitude.  We  have 
the  living  Word — we  know  the  heavenly  will — we 
have  been  with  Jesus  and  have  learned  of  him ;  we 
have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels.  There  need 
never  be  any  uncertainty  about  the  divinity  of  our 
message.  We  ourselves  need  to  be  constantly 
strengthened,  inspired,  and  enlightened;  we  must 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being  in  God ;  along  the 
line  of  individual  discipline  our  duty  is  obvious  and 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  1 37 

imperative;  but  as  to  our  Message,  is  it  not  written 
for  us  and  handed  to  us  as  a  sacred  trust? 

Regarded  as  self-contained,  the  proposition  would 
seem  to  create  a  species  of  sacerdotalism.  It  might 
be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  this : 

Every  living  preacher  receives 
his  message  in  a  communica- 
tion direct  from  God,  and  as  a 
faithful  messenger  he  delivers  it 
without  addition  or  subtraction. 

What  are  the  people  to  do  in  the  presence  of  such 
a  man  ?  Is  he  less  than  a  priest,  a  divinely  elected 
channel  of  at  least  a  particular  kind  or  quality  of 
grace?  Is  he  not  removed  from  the  ranks  of 
brotherhood  and  set  upon  an  official  pedestal  ?  And 
of  what  avail  is  it,  except  as  increasing  the  irony  of 
the  situation,  that  he  abjure  gown  and  bands  and 
stole  and  chasuble,  if  in  a  layman's  garb  he. claim 
what  is  hardly  distinguishable  from  a  priestly  func- 
tion ?  The  clothes  do  not  make  the  priest.  I  am  not 
prepared  to  believe  that  God  gives  direct  commu- 
nications to  every  living  preacher  in  any  sense  that 
puts  the  living  preacher  into  a  category  of  his  own ; 


138  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

my  belief  is  that  God  communicates  with  his  Church 
— "ye  are  God's  clergy;"  that  he  "sends  a  plentiful 
rain  upon  his  inheritance,"  and  that  no  humble  soul 
is  denied  a  sight  of  the  open  vision. 

If  the  position  of  the  preacher  is  thus  made  in  a 
sense  sacerdotal,  notwithstanding  disclaimers,  what 
shall  be  said  of  the  position  of  the  Bible  ?  If  preach- 
ers are  preaching  direct  communications  from  God, 
if  the  word  of  the  Lord  comes  as  certainly  as  it  once 
came,  are  we  to  understand  that  the  Bible  is  a  local 
book,  a  limited  message,  an  ancient  story,  an  ex- 
hausted revelation?  The  author  of  the  proposition 
would  reply  in  a  vehement  negative,  but  even  a  ve- 
hement negative  might  not  cover  the  ground.  It 
is  most  unprofitable  to  lay  down  a  huge  proposition 
and  then  to  cut  it  away  term  by  term.  Better  far, 
for  practical  purposes,  to  reason  to  a  conclusion,  to 
carry  forward  all  the  vital  assumptions,  to  clear  the 
ground  step  by  step,  and  then  to  announce  the  grand 
total  of  the  process.  In  the  degree  in  which  I  have 
done  this  in  the  conduct  of  my  own  argument,  I  feel 
entitled  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  to  me  the  contem- 
porary of  all  ages,  a  revelation  at  once  ancient  and 


THE  WORD   TAUGHT.  1 39 

modern,  the  living  Word  which  abideth  forever,  and 
my  conviction  is  that  every  humble  reader  of  the 
everlasting  record  is  encouraged  to  pray,  "  Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things 
out  of  thy  law;  yea,  open  thou  mine  understanding, 
that  I  may  understand  the  scriptures."  I  would  go 
even  farther,  and  would  resolutely  test  every  sermon 
by  the  Bible,  rather  than  test  the  Bible  by  the  sermon, 
by  whomsoever  preached.  Jesus  I  know  and  Paul  I 
know,  but  I  do  not  know  any  man  who  sets  them 
aside.  Having  listened  to  the  discourse  of  the  truest 
and  wisest  preacher,  I  would  reserve  the  right 
to  search  the  Scriptures  daily,  that  I  might  know 
whether  I  had  been  listening  to  the  word  of  man  or 
to  the  Word  of  God. 


VI. 

FUNDAMENTALS. 

THE  form  of  personal  testimony  has  thus  far  been 
purposely  adopted  with  a  view  to  the  strict  limi- 
tation of  responsibility.  I  have  tried  to  state  my  own 
faith — the  faith  on  which  I  live — in  words  as  clear  and 
simple  as  I  could  find.  More  and  more  I  see  that 
faith  must  be  a  man's  own.  We  fail  when  we  try  to 
pass  faith  on  from  hand  to  hand  as  a  set  of  words 
which  no  man  may  change.  Words  were  made  for 
men,  not  men  for  words.  There  need  be  no  wonder 
that  in  the  coming  and  going  of  words  some  things 
may  seem  to  be  new  which  in  fact  are  really  old.  It 
is  only  the  word  that  is  new;  the  truth  has  put  on  a 
new  form  for  a  new  day.  The  old  trees  dress  them- 
selves in  new  leaves  every  spring.  I  have  come  to 
see  how  possible  it  is  that  even  doubt  itself  may  be 
a  form  of  faith.     The  mind  does  not  always  move  in 

140 


FUNDAMENTALS. 


HI 


straight  lines.  But  if  it  did,  may  it  not  be  true  that 
straight  lines  are  impossible  in  a  universe  of  circles? 
The  mistake  may  be  in  thinking  that  there  are  any 
straight  lines.  Even  a  diameter  is  limited  by  the 
circumference.  Teachers  recognizing  diversities  of 
constitution  and  temperament  will  make  a  differ- 
ence between  one  doubter  and  another — "  on  some 
have  compassion,  making  a  difference  " — but  they 
must  always  meet  sincerity  with  patience,  and  not 
allow  themselves  to  see  perdition  in  every  troubled 
or  even  hostile  inquiry.  Our  cross-examiners  may 
be  only  feeling  their  way  to  the  Rock  and  the  Altar. 
What  is  to  be  our  answer  to  those  who  are  always 
calling  out  for  some  new  thing  even  in  religion? 
The  call  may  not  be  frivolous.  Even  newness  is  not 
necessarily  despicable.  It  is  not  unreasonable,  how- 
ever, if  any  good  use  is  to  be  made  of  the  past,  to 
meet  newness  with  some  degree  of  suspicion.  It  has 
sometimes  falsified  its  own  credentials.  Yet  a  house- 
holder should  bring  out  of  his  treasure  things  new 
and  old.  May  I  venture  upon  the  paradox  that  only 
the  old  can  be  the  really  new?  Your  house  is  new, 
but  how  old  is  the  earth  on  which  it  is  built?  Your 
furniture  is  new,  but  how  old  was  the  walnut  wood 


142  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

out  of  which  it  was  cut  ?  And  what  is  our  hoary 
"  old  "  compared  with  the  true  antiquity?  The  gray 
old  minster  on  which  centuries  have  written  their 
cipher  is  of  yesterday  compared  with  the  rock  out  of 
which  it  was  cut  and  on  which  it  rests.  Or  if  the 
newness  that  is  admired  and  desiderated  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  what  is  called  "originality,"  the  same 
remark  applies.  Originality  is  always  on  the  road 
to  commonplace.  It  is  on  the  commonplace  that  we 
live.  Life  feeds  on  bread.  The  unique  is  only  the 
universal  brought  to  a  point.  This  is  so  with  per- 
sonality. You  and  I  and  the  common  multitude 
make  Shakespeare  possible.  If  all  men  were  Shake- 
speares  there  would  be  no  Shakespeare.  If  all  plains 
were  mountains  there  would  be  no  mountains.  The 
hill  is  only  the  valley  as  high  up  as  it  can  get.  You 
would  be  surprised  how  poor  the  bust  looks  when  it 
is  taken  off  the  pedestal.  All  this  applies  to  doc- 
trine. All  this  is  a  reply  to  the  clamor  for  origi- 
nality. Notwithstanding  the  modern  prophets  and 
yesterday's  untested  inspiration,  I  do  not  believe  in 
new  doctrines.  I  believe  in  new  ways  of  combining 
the  seven  notes,  but  I  am  not  sure  that  an  eighth 
note  has  been  discovered,     Other  Handels  and  Bee- 


FUNDAMENTALS.  1 43 

thovens  will  arise,  but  the  seven  notes  abide  forever, 
ready  to  respond  in  new  obedience  to  new  masters. 
New  illustrations  we  should  welcome :  new  doctrines 
we  should  suspect.  In  comparing  old  things  with 
new  it  is  but  common  justice  to  remember  that  all 
the  Christian  miracles,  by  which  I  now  mean  all  the 
wonders  of  home  and  foreign  evangelization,  were 
wrought  by  the  old  doctrines  and  the  men  who  were 
prepared  to  die  for  them.  I  put  in  the  history 
of  missions  as  evidence.  I  never  heard  of  a  new 
hypothesis  founding  a  missionary  society.  The  men 
who  believed  in  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  in 
heaven  and  hell,  in  verbal  inspiration  and  in  eternal 
punishment,  proved  their  faith  by  their  works.  They 
may  have  been  intellectually  misguided,  but  they 
were  faithful  and  noble  to  the  point  of  self-sacrifice, 
and  we  who  think  they  were  mistaken  have  entered 
into  their  labors/ and  ought  to  be  their  grateful  debt- 
ors forever. 

Can  we  take  an  optimistic  view  of  the  present 
Christian  outlook  ?  Has  not  Christianity  had  its  day, 
and  has  it  not  gone  down  as  a  sun  that  is  set?  Yes. 
It  has  gone  down  precisely  in  that  way.     I  am  not 


144  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

aware  that  when  the  sun  has  gone  out  of  sight  it 
has  gone  out  of  existence.  I  believe  that  the  bright 
view  is  the  only  full  view,  and  therefore  the  only  true 
view.  The  danger  is  that  we  be  tempted  to  draw 
large  conclusions  from  a  very  limited  number  of 
facts,  and  to  forget  that  under  the  law  of  advance 
there  is  a  law  of  retrocession  and  modification.  The 
movement  of  God  is  not  to  be  judged  in  inches. 
Not  even  in  centuries.  It  is  to  be  judged,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  the  first  verse  of  the  Bible.  We  have 
examined  it  and  found  all  the  guarantees  there. 
The  creating  God  is  the  perfecting  God — is  so,  not 
poetically,  but  by  the  very  necessity  of  his  own 
attributes.  In  the  evolution  of  Christian  history  we 
undoubtedly  come  upon  eras  of  barrenness  and  we 
pass  through  zones  of  storm.  But  we  must  take  in 
more  horizon  if  we  would  judge  wise  judgment,  and 
the  details  we  must  leave  to  the  Master;  he  will 
shape  them  and  correct  them,  and  rule  them  into  his 
beneficent  economy.  If  we  would  work  more  and 
manage  less,  our  rest  would  be  less  scared  by  ill-bred 
dreams.  Work  helps  faith.  Faith  is  ever  calm. 
Upon  what  are  we  standing?  Are  we  standing 
upon  the  work  of  man  or  upon  the  Word  of  God — 


FUNDAMENTALS.  1 45 

upon  a  resolution  that  can  be  amended,  or  upon  an 
Oath  that  is  unchangeable  ?  There  can  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  proving  from  its  own  contents  and  its  own 
spirit  that  the  Bible  is  distinctly  optimistic.  From 
first  to  last  the  outlook  is  bright.  The  serpent  can 
hurt  the  heel  only,  but  the  bruised  heel  is  to  crush 
the  serpent's  head.  The  name  of  Christ  is  always 
associated  with  triumph ;  true  or  untrue,  fact  or  fic- 
tion, the  Bible  contemplates  nothing  but  victory. 

"  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning 
fall  from  heaven." 

"  When  Christ  ascended  up 
on  high  he  led  captivity  captive. " 

1 '  Having  spoiled  principalities 
and  powers,  he  made  a  show  of 
them  openly,  triumphing  over 
them." 

We  are  not  now  discussing  the  truth  of  these 
views.  Our  one  point  is  that  from  first  to  last  the 
Bible  sees  nothing  but  victory ;  and  the  continuous- 
ness  of  that  foresight,  considering  the  incessant  and 
tremendous  action  of  the  book,  is  itself  an  argument. 
I  cannot  give  up  the  logical  value  of  that  significant 
fact.      If  one  writer  only  had  been  jubilant  and  the 


146  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

others  had  been  despairing,  the  value  of  the  argu- 
ment would  have  been  destroyed.  "  The  seed  of 
the  woman  shall  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent " 
would  seem  to  be  the  heroic  declaration  which  the 
Bible  sets  itself  to  make  good.  If  the  whole  Bible 
had  been  the  work  of  one  man,  the  value  of  the 
argument  would  have  sunk  immensely.  But  the 
Bible  is  the  work  of  many  men,  in  many  places,  and 
in  many  centuries,  yet  its  tone  never  varies,  its  cour- 
age never  declines,  and  that  fact,  which  can  be  tested 
by  any  reader,  I  claim  not  as  a  fact  only,  but  as  an 
argument  that  cannot  be  shaken.  Truly,  there  is 
sorrow  enough  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  the  kind  of 
sorrow  essential  to  perfect  joy.  True,  also,  that  the 
Bible  is  a  record  of  conflict  and  hostility — the  very 
history  of  perdition  itself — in  a  sense  quite  as  much 
a  revelation  of  the  devil  as  of  God — but  the  enemy 
is  dashed  to  pieces  like  a  potter's  vessel :  "  Unto  the 
Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and 
ever;  "  "he  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  morning 
when  the  sun  riseth,  even  a  morning  without  clouds." 
The  Bible  does  not  ignore  the  tragedies  which  con- 
vulse and  darken  the  human  story — this  is  no  blind 
optimism  that  tints  the  sky  with  hectic  colors — the 


FUN  DA  MEN  TALS.  1 4  7 

whole  horror  is  realized,  and  in  the  ghastly  presence 
of  sin's  vast  havoc  the  Apostle  exclaims,  "  Where  sin 
abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound."  The 
grace  is  not  overborne  by  the  sin,  the  sin  is  over- 
borne by  the  grace.  I  claim  this,  then,  as  an  argu- 
ment set  in  many  lights  and  reasoned  by  many 
minds,  yet  ending  in  the  vindication  of  one  law  and 
in  the  coronation  of  one  Personality. 

The  optimism  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  the  optimism 
of  the  Church  and  all  its  ministries.  This  is  to  be 
the  spirit  of  our  service.  We  are  saved  by  hope. 
We  are  inspired  by  hope.  We  build  in  hope. 
Under  the  influence  of  this  assurance  of  final  triumph 
we  shall  remember  in  all  our  work  that  there  are 
other  people  in  the  world  besides  infidels  and  ob- 
jectors. It  has  for  a  long  time  seemed  to  me  that 
for  any  man  to  build  his  ministry  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  is  going  to  convert  infidels  by  answer- 
ing their  objections  and  removing  their  difficulties  is 
to  adopt  a  policy  which  must  end  in  disappointment. 
That  special  arrangements  may  be  made  for  this  kind 
of  service  is  another  matter.  I  am  speaking  of  the 
purpose  and  staple  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Infi- 
delity may  soon  exalt  itself  into  a  profession.     To 


148  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

some  men  infidelity  may  be  the  only  possible  distinc- 
tion. I  seriously  doubt  whether  an  infidel  can  even 
ask  a  question  in  a  right  spirit,  and  in  Christian  in- 
quiry the  right  spirit  is  everything.  If  I  may  not 
say  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  because  the 
infidel  will  at  once  draw  my  attention  to  a  hard  verse, 
neither  may  I  tell  him  that  prayer  is  answered,  be- 
cause he  will  at  once  tell  me  that  many  a  prayer  for 
safety  has  been  followed  by  shipwreck,  and  many  a 
prayer  for  recovery  has  been  followed  by  bereave- 
ment. Neither  may  I  tell  him  that  God  rules  the 
world,  or  he  will  at  once  point  me  to  still  harder 
verses  in  human  life.  And  who  is  this  wonderful 
man  the  infidel,  that  he  should  plant  himself  in 
mid-stream  and  divert  the  current  of  Christian  teach- 
ing as  he  pleases  ?  What  are  his  credentials  ?  Is  he 
greater  than  the  apostles,  the  pastors,  and  the  mis- 
sionaries whom  we  have  known?  Is  their  inspiration 
less  than  his  no-inspiration  ?  I  boldly  deny  this  man's 
right  to  be  heard  when  the  question  is  one  of  preach- 
ing the  gospel  to  every  creature.  It  is  our  business 
to  preach  the  gospel.  We  have  a  message,  and  we 
must  deliver  it.  Nor  must  we  be  affrighted  by  any 
lion  in  the  way.     But  to  do  his  work  well,  the  min- 


FUN  DA  MEN  TALS.  1 49 

ister  must  take  great  care  that  he  himself  is  not  an 
infidel.  A  formal  infidel  of  course  he  cannot  be. 
An  insincere  and  self-seeking  teacher  he  surely  can- 
not be.  Yet  unbelief  or  half-belief  or  doubting 
belief  may  chill  his  very  heart,  may  even  spoil  the 
delivery  of  the  most  correct  verbal  message.  My 
meaning  can  hardly  be  mistaken.  It  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  messenger  must  believe  his  own  message  if 
he  is  to  expect  other  people  to  believe  it.  Notwith- 
standing his  belief,  they  may  reject  it,  yet  will  not 
their  blood  be  required  at  the  watchman's  hand? 
Working  as  if  the  victory  were  assured,  with  what 
thrilling  enthusiasm  will  the  preacher  preach !  In 
his  soul  there  is  a  whisper,  "  The  Lord  will  sud- 
denly come  to  his  temple."  He  remembers  the 
prophecy,  "  I  will  shake  all  nations,  and  the  desire 
of  all  nations  shall  come."  He  answers  the  promises 
with  loving  desires  and  burning  prayers — "  Oh  that 
thou  wouldst  rend  the  heavens,  that  thou  wouldst 
come  down!"  "Make  no  tarrying,  O  my  God!" 
"  Even  so,  come,  Lord  Jesus."  Thus  the  messenger 
has  secret  communion  with  his  Lord,  and  many  a 
love-token  passes  between  them.  Saith  the  Lord, 
"  Behold,  I   come    quickly  ;  "   saith   the   messenger, 


150  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

"  Come,  Lord  Jesus,  come."  The  descending  Lord 
says,  "  Surely  I  come  quickly  ;  "  the  listening  ser- 
vant answers,  "  Thou  art  fairer  than  the  children  of 
men;  .  .  .  make  haste,  my  Beloved."  Thus  the 
holy  work  is  done  in  hope.  The  issue  is  not  depend- 
ent upon  the  will  of  man.  "  Not  by  might,  nor  by 
power,  but  by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 
Great  mountains  may  stand  in  the  way,  but  before 
Zerubbabel  they  shall  be  leveled  into  plains.  We 
are  not  struggling  in  a  forlorn  cause.  There  is  no 
need  of  the  cheer  which  comes  from  tabulated  statis- 
tics. We  take  our  stand  upon  the  oath  of  God,  and 
in  that  oath  we  see,  as  if  it  were  an  accomplished 
fact,  a  world  reconciled  and  a  Saviour  satisfied. 

We  shall,  however,  soon  lose  our  hope  if  we  ex- 
change regeneration  for  reformation.  Christ  is  a 
Regenerator,  not  a  Reformer.  The  reformer  works 
by  program ;  the  Regenerator  works  by  the  silent, 
subtle,  infinite  power  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  No 
wise  man  despises  reforms ;  no  Christian  man  is 
satisfied  with  them.  As  effects  they  are  good ;  as 
causes  they  are  impotent.  But  a  program  of  re- 
forms is  most  tempting  alike  to  impatience  and  am- 
bition.    Man  wants  the  visible  and  the  immediate, 


FUNDAMENTALS.  I  5  I 

and  this  he  foolishly  thinks  is  being  practical.  We 
are  hindered  by  the  very  Word  we  worship.  Spirit- 
ual men  should  be  most  sparing  and  careful  in  the 
use  of  secular  terms  in  relation  to  their  special  work. 
With  the  word  "practical"  as  a  primary  term  we 
have  nothing  to  do.  Our  doctrine  is  spiritual.  Our 
submission,  I  will  use  a  stronger  word  and  boldly  say 
our  contention,  is  that  only  the  metaphysically  right 
is  the  practically  good.  Only  the  metaphysically 
right  is  Eternal.  "  Make  the  tree  good  and  the  fruit 
will  be  good."  This  accounts  for  the  slowness  of 
Christ's  work  and  its  thoroughness.  The  reformer 
can  move  at  once.  His  work  is  useful.  I  am  not 
attempting  to  deny  it.  But  his  work  is  superficial, 
or  limited,  or  temporary,  or  circumstantial.  It  is 
exactly  otherwise  with  the  work  of  Christ.  "  Your 
time  is  always  ready,"  said  Christ,  "  mine  hour  is  not 
yet  come."  The  man  who  has  to  make  a  ladder 
can  bind  himself  under  penalty  to  do  it  within  a  cer- 
tain time;  but  the  man  who  undertakes  to  grow  a 
tree  is  in  a  different  position.  A  tree  may  be  trained 
very  much  as  you  please ;  but  a  mind  must  be  con- 
sulted and  studied.  A  coat  may  be  made :  a  char- 
acter has  to  be  developed.     How  easy  to  clothe  a 


152  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

body ;  how  hard  to  clothe  a  mind !  These  illustra- 
tions may  in  some  degree  indicate  the  difficulty,  be- 
cause the  inwardness  and  the  spirituality,  of  the  work 
of  Christ.  And  as  is  the  work  of  Christ  so  is  the 
work  of  his  ministers.  It  is  not  a  reforming  work,  a 
social  work,  a  political  work,  a  controversial  work ;  it 
is  all  this  and  more,  and  only  this  because  it  is  more. 
An  atheist  may  be  an  advocate  of  sanitation.  A 
profane  swearer  may  be  an  expert  in  questions  as  be- 
tween capital  and  labor.  A  man  may  be  a  temper- 
ance reformer  and  never  open  a  Bible.  I  purposely 
put  the  matter  thus  broadly  that  I  may  make  the 
uniqueness  of  specifically  Christian  work  the  more 
obvious  and  impressive.  Ministers  are  inspired  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  separated  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  do  a  work  that  cannot  be  confused  or  mingled 
with  any  other  kind  of  work.  When  they  lose  their 
distinctiveness  they  not  only  lose  their  power,  they 
lose  the  very  reason  of  their  existence.  Forgetting 
this,  they  have,  in  some  instances,  nearly  wrecked 
their  true  influence.  And  consider  how  great  that 
true  influence  ought  to  be !  It  should  be  a  terror  to 
evil-doers.  Bad  men  would  soon  be  made  to  feel 
that  every  act  was  under  holy  criticism  and  that  the 


FUND  AMEN  TALS.  I  5  3 

very  air  was  alive  with  judgment.  The  witness  of 
God  would  express  itself  through  the  testimony 
of  ministers.  The  poor,  the  broken-hearted,  the 
wronged,  and  the  down-trodden  would  soon  be  made 
to  understand  that  their  Redeemer  liveth.  We  must 
get  back,  then,  to  the  metaphysical,  back  to  the 
spiritual,  back  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

'  \  We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen 
vessels  that  the  excellency  of  the 
power  may  be  of  God  and  not  of 
us." 

"  By  manifestation  of  the  truth 
commending  ourselves  to  every 
man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of 
God." 

"  My  speech  and  my  preaching 
was  not  with  enticing  words  of 
man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration 
of  the  Spirit  and  of  power." 

"  Our  gospel  came  not  unto  you 
in  word  only,  but  also  in  power, 
and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in 
much  assurance." 

In  thus  giving  Christ  his  proper  function  as  a  Re- 
generator we  shall  know  exactly  how  to  define  and 
qualify  the  doctrine  which  has  grown  around  the 
word  Christocentric.      Properly  denned,  there  is   no 


154  KONE  LIKE  IT. 

objection  to  the  word,  yet  it  may  be  most  deceitful 
and  misleading.  Christ  must  not  be  at  the  center 
in  the  sense  of  a  bust  surrounded  by  floral  tributes. 
Then  he  would  be  a  mere  idol.  He  must  be  at  the 
center  in  a  living,  commanding,  inspiring  sense.  Not 
that  alone.  Infinitely  more  than  that.  He  must 
prove  his  right  to  be  there.  And  to  be  there  is  no 
man's  right.  Only  God  can  be  there  with  adequate 
right.  The  position  would  overweigh  and  over- 
whelm any  man.  Yet  Christ  must  be  there.  And 
if  there,  why?  Because  of  his  quality,  his  resources, 
his  doctrine,  his  majesty,  his  Godhead!  To  my 
consciousness  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Incarnate  God  not 
because  of  some  Greek  preposition  or  some  recon- 
dite point  in  Greek  syntax.  If  grammar  created  his 
deity,  grammar  might  destroy  it.  To  me  he  is  God 
incarnate  because  of  what  he  is  in  himself,  and  not 
because  of  what  he  is  even  in  the  estimation  of  his 
worshipers.  If,  therefore,  we  gather  around  him 
not  as  an  idol,  not  as  a  figure  of  extreme  dignity  and 
loveliness,  but  as  the  Incarnate  God,  the  term  Chris- 
tocentric,  though  pedantic  and  affected,  may  not  be 
objectionable,  in  some  cases  it  may  even  be  tempo- 
rarily useful.     But  its  deceitfulness  is  obvious.     It 


FUNDAMENTALS.  155 

may  conceal  a  deep  disloyalty.  It  may  go  no  farther 
than  admiration.  It  may  only  mean  applause,  it 
may  not  express  the  highest  conception  of  worship. 
The  poet  has  his  "society,"  the  philosopher  has  his 
devotees,  but  Christ,  as  God  the  Son,  must  be  hailed 
as  Lord  and  God,  and  adored  as  the  Infinite  Saviour 
of  the  world.  How  is  the  reality  of  this  worship  to 
be  proved?  May  it  not  be  a  mere  sentiment?  May 
even  prayer  be  other  than  emotion  rhetorically  ex- 
pressed? Here,  again,  as  ever — a  continuousness 
which  amounts  to  a  revelation  and  an  argument — we 
come  upon  the  law  and  the  test  of  strenuous  disci- 
pline. Our  worship  must  be  tried  by  rack  and  thumb- 
screw ;  our  prayers  must  be  passed  through  the  fire. 
"  The  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it 
is."     Christocentric  does  not  mean  self-considering: 

"  Why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and 
do  not  the  things  which  I  say?  " 

* '  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  that 
doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven." 

"If  any  man  will  come  after  me, 
let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross,  and  follow  me." 


156  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

1 '  Let  us  go  forth,  .therefore,  unto 
him  without  the  camp  bearing  his 
reproach." 

If  by  Christocentric  we  mean  such  devotion  and 
such  discipline,  it  becomes  but  a  new  verbal  descrip- 
tion of  an  old  and  unchanging  process. 

It  is  here  that  I  find  a  standing-place,  a  rock, 
amidst  the  bogs  and  the  quicksands  of  this  century 
of  self-assault  and  self- rectification  on  the  part  of 
Christian  believers.  It  is  not  at  all  discouraging, 
indeed  it  may  be  the  exact  contrary,  that  Chris- 
tians are  overhauling  their  own  books  and  arguments. 
And  inasmuch  as  the  overhauling  leads  to  no  cessa- 
tion of  Christian  activity,  but  if  possible  to  an  in- 
crease of  apostolic  service,  it  is  safe  to  infer  that  they 
themselves  conclude  that  no  central  position  has  been 
shaken.  A  broad  distinction  must  be  drawn  between 
men  who  assail  the  Bible  because  they  are  hostile  to 
its  moral  teaching  and  men  who  believe  that  the 
moral  teaching  would  be  better  understood  if  the 
historical  and  critical  position  were  better  defined. 
These  men  are  our  friends  and  helpers ;  we  must 
therefore  honor  and  guard  their  spotless  reputation ; 


FUNDAMENTALS.  I  5  7 

and  this  we  can  do  without  being  able  to  accept  all 
their  suggestions  and  conclusions.  My  present  feel- 
ing is  that  some  of  them  in  moving  at  all  have  either 
gone  too  far  or  they  have  not  gone  far  enough.  1 
could  have  understood  them  better  if  they  had  not 
claimed  any  exceptional  inspiration  for  the  Bible, 
for  to  me  inspiration  is  more  than  spiritual  genius,  it 
is  sovereign  and  divine  authority.  There  are  two 
positions,  outside  the  orthodox  view,  which  might  be 
maintained  intelligibly  and  effectively. 

First:  A  man  may  say  that,  without  mak- 
ing any  claim  whatever  for  the  Bible, 
he  simply  finds  in  it  many  things  that 
are  most  pathetic  and  beautiful,  and 
he  values  them  on  their  merits.  He 
neither  knows  nor  cares  to  know  who 
wrote  the  Bible :  he  reads  it  as  a  col- 
lection of  books  and  judges  it  as  its 
contents  may  vary.  This  man  has  no 
theory  of  inspiration. 
Second:  A  man  may  say  that  inspiration 
comes  and  goes;  the  Bible  was  in- 
spired ;  it  was  at  the  time  all  that  the 
most  orthodox  have  claimed  for  it,  but 


158  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

now  it  is  displaced,  in  the  higher  educa- 
tion, by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  second  view  might  be  profitably  examined  by 
Christian  believers.  It  is  more  than  possible  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  may  have  been,  unintentionally  in 
many  instances,  ignored  and  dishonored.  Is  it  not 
possible  that  the  Bible,  regarded  simply  as  a  book, 
may  have  done  all  that  it  was  ever  intended  to  do, 
and  according  to  the  law  "  first  that  which  is  natural, 
afterward  that  which  is  spiritual,"  may  it  not  now 
disappear,  except  as  a  historical  record,  and  give 
place  to  the  Living  Spirit,  the  very  Spirit  which,  in 
the  opinion  of  many,  dictated  and  inspired  its  mes- 
sages? I  find  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that  such  an 
inquiry  may  be  conducted  in  the  most  reverential 
and  obedient  spirit.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  displace- 
ment or  supersession  has  been  the  law  of  the  Bible 
itself.  This  I  regard  as  a  key  which  might  be  largely 
used.  Sacrifices  have  been  displaced :  ritual  has 
been  superseded :  "  the  first  tabernacle  was  a  figure 
for  the  time  then  present "  (Heb.  ix.  9),  and  was  dis- 
placed "  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle 
not  made  with  hands  "  :  the  law  was  only  "  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of 


FUND  AMEN  TALS.  1 5  9 

the  things  "  :  "  there  is  verily  a  disannulling  of  the 
commandment":  miracles  are  no  longer  known  as 
in  New  Testament  times :  the  Saviour  himself  has 
ascended  up  on  high,  "  yea,  though  we  have  known 
Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we 
him  no  more"  (2  Cor.  v.  16):  we  cannot  deny  this 
law  of  displacement.  Sometimes  we  call  it  the  law 
of  growth.  The  man  displaces  the  child.  The  fruit 
displaces  the  blossom.  Experience  displaces  igno- 
rance. Who,  then,  shall  say  that  the  Bible,  consid- 
ered as  a  book,  may  not  be  displaced  by  the  Spirit 
wrho  wrote  it  by  the  hands  of  men?  But  by  what 
test  should  we  then  know  ourselves  to  be  of  the 
divine  seed  ?  "  Hereby  know  we  that  we  dwell  in 
him,  and  he  in  us,  because  he  hath  given  us  of  his 
Spirit"  (1  John  iv.  13).  But  how  do  we  know  that 
the  living  Christ  is  in  our  hearts  the  hope  of  glory  ? 
"  Hereby  know  we  that  he  abideth  in  us,  by  the 
Spirit  which  he  hath  given  us"  (1  John  iii.  24). 
"  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God"  (Rom.  viii.  16).  But 
can  we  be  perfectly  sure  that  we  have  realized  our 
forgiveness  and  received  the  seal  from  God  ?  "  He 
that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in 


l6o  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

himself"  (i  John  v.  10).  In  view  of  all  the  facts 
thus  set  forth  I  am  quite  prepared  to  believe  that  the 
Church  may  be  passing  through  a  transition  in  regard 
to  the  exact  place  of  the  Bible  in  Christian  educa- 
tion, nor  can  I  call  those  men  infidels  or  enemies 
who  have  entered  into  such  deep  communion  with 
the  Spirit  that  the  book  is  no  longer,  as  a  book,  what 
it  was  when  they  first  believed.  For  my  own  part 
I  still  need  the  book,  and  I  need  the  Spirit  to  inter- 
pret it.  "  Whatsoever  things  were  written  afore- 
time were  written  for  our  learning,  that  we  through 
patience  and  comfort  of  the  scriptures  might  have 
hope  "  (Rom.  xv.  4).  I  am  willing  to  bear  all  the 
reproach  of  the  old  faith  if  I  may  be  permitted  to 
keep  the  book  to  whose  messages  I  owe  my  very 
soul.  All  that  I  know  of  Jesus  I  learned  from  the 
Bible.  It  has  been  a  lamp  to  my  feet  ever  since  I 
accepted  its  teaching.  When  all  other  books  have 
forsaken  me  the  Bible  has  been  to  me  sweeter  than 
honey,  yea,  than  the  honeycomb. 

I  deliver  this  testimony  the  more  earnestly  because 
it  helps  to  account  for  a  fact  which  is  not  always 
understood.  That  fact  is  the  supposed  narrowness 
of  men  who  cannot  at  once  surrender  an  old  friend 


FUNDAMENTALS'.  1 6 1 

for  a  new  theory.  I  am  one  of  those  men.  The 
propounders  of  theories  that  are  novel  even  if  true 
will  immensely  increase  the  value  of  their  theories 
by  being  patient  with  those  who  ask  for  time  to  ex- 
amine them.  Epithets  are  not  always  convincing. 
Why  should  we  be  called  narrow,  bigoted,  unpro- 
gressive,  and  superstitious?  We  think  we  have  a 
vindication — sometimes  that  vindication  is  a  memorv, 
or  an  experience,  or  an  emotion,  or  a  conviction ; 
but  whatever  it  is,  we  think  an  answer  better  than  a 
sneer.  Those  who  sneer  at  our  narrowness  should 
remember  our  training.  We  think  we  owe  more  to 
the  Bible  than  we  owe  to  them.  For  the  present, 
speculation  is  subordinate  to  gratitude.  But  we  had 
really  come  to  love  the  Bible,  greatly  as  we  may 
have  been  mistaken.  We  did  not  love  it  thought- 
lessly;  our  love  was  based  upon  reason.  When  we 
were  poor,  the  Bible  spoke  to  us  as  if  it  knew  exactly 
our  emptiness  and  destitution,  and  it  bade  us  be  of 
good  cheer  and  to  fix  our  expectation  upon  God. 
When  the  little  child  came  into  the  house,  Jesus 
Christ  spoke  to  us  about  it,  took  it  up  in  his  arms 
and  blessed  it;  and  when  the  little  child  died  that 
same  Jesus  said,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 


1 62  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  ' '  and  as 
we  tremblingly  placed  it  in  his  arms  he  smiled  upon 
us,  and  said  something  about  "  a  little  while."  The 
Bible  has  been  very  precious  to  us.  I  know  not 
what  the  house  would  have  been  without  it.  The 
print  was  so  large  that  we  could  read  it  in  the  dark. 
The  message  was  so  good  that  it  soothed  our  weari- 
ness and  lay  like  balm  upon  the  heart  that  was  ill  at 
ease.  In  such  hours  men  knew  as  if  by  an  inspired 
instinct  what  a  book  really  is.  It  was  in  such  hours 
that  we  first  truly  read  the  Bible.  And  as  we  read 
the  psalm,  the  prophecy,  the  song,  we  pressed  the 
Bible  to  our  hearts  and  called  it  the  Word  of  God. 
Be  patient,  therefore,  with  us  if  we  cannot  all  at  once 
change  our  point  of  view  and  modify  our  apprecia- 
tion. We  do  not  mean  to  be  "narrow,"  but  we  do 
mean  to  be  just.  A  life-long  love  implies  a  long 
process  of  eradication.  We  must  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  be  of  God.  We  are  not  afraid  of 
light.  We  have  no  fear  of  progress.  We  pray 
for  the  expansion  and  sanctification  of  scholarship. 
True  criticism  will  rob  us  of  no  promise,  and  in  no 
degree  will  it  spoil  our  heritage  or  vex  our  peace. 
But  do  not  call  us  "  narrow  "  even  if  we  think  every 


FUNDAMENTALS.  1 63 

word  in  the  Bible  came  directly  out  of  heaven  from 
God.  Sq  much  did  come  from  him  that  we  sup- 
posed it  must  all  have  come.  Perhaps  we  ap- 
proached the  Bible  more  from  the  point  of  sympathy 
than  from  the  point  of  criticism.  Take  away  from 
it,  if  you  can,  all  its  literal  errors,  and  rectify  all  its 
historical  mistakes,  you  will,  I  know,  as  Christian 
scholars  be  just  as  anxious  as  the  humblest  believer 
to  guard  the  tree  of  life  and  magnify  the  love  of 
Christ. 


VII. 

NOTES   AND    COMMENTS. 


O  Thou  living  One,  tender 
and  strong  beyond  all  thoughts  of 
mine,  I  feel  great  need  of  Thee  just 
now.  I  am  about  to  differ  from 
men  who  serve  Thee  night  and 
day,  and  whose  love  and  zeal  put 
my  poor  work  to  shame.  May  my 
words  be  well  chosen  lest  they 
should  wantonly  offend  those  who 
love  Thee  with  entireness  of  heart. 
May  I  mock  the  argument  without 
mocking  the  man.  Spirit  of  the 
gentle  Christ,  make  me  gentle! 
Spirit  of  truth,  make  me  sincere! 


ANY  books  now  in  circulation  are,  perhaps 
unduly,  and  certainly  without  intention,  trou- 
bling people  who  have  been  zealously,  and  some  think 
ignorantly,  holding  on  to  the  old  form  of  truth  with- 
out question  and  without  doubt.      I  am  far  from  sure 

that  such  people  should  read  the  kind  of  books  I 

164 


M 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  1 65 

refer  to,  and  quite  as  far  from  sure  that  such  books 
should  be  offered  for  public  sale.  To  experts  they 
may  be  useful :  to  others  they  may  do  much  tem- 
porary harm.  For  example,  Mr.  Morton  says  in  his 
preface  to  "  Revelation  and  the  Bible  "  :  "  This  book 
pretends  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  series  of  tenta- 
tive suggestions."  Then  was  it  wise  to  offer  it  for 
miscellaneous  sale?  An  author  cannot  limit  his  re- 
sponsibility in  this  way.  His  own  intention  may  be 
perfect,  and  in  a  large  degree  may  be  defensible,  but 
after  publication  he  is  only  one  party  in  the  case. 
What  does  the  Church,  taken  as  a  whole,  young  and 
old,  trained  and  untrained,  want  with  "  a  series  of 
tentative  suggestions"?  Is  not  this  an  unsatisfac- 
tory kind  of  "  reconstruction  "  ?  Who  can  have  any 
sense  of  safety  in  living  in  a  house  which  is  "  nothing 
more  than  a  series  of  tentative  suggestions  "?  Who 
would  care  to  travel  by  a  time-table  that  is  "  nothing 
more  than  a  series  of  tentative  suggestions"?  Such 
suggestions  offered  to  experts  or  specialists  may  be 
useful ;  can  they  do  any  real  good  to  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  Christian  Church?  The  title-page  offers 
"an  attempt  at  reconstruction":  the  preface  prom- 
ises "  nothing  more  than  a  series  of  tentative  Stfgges- 


1 66  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

tions."  I  cannot  accept  that  estimate  of  the  book. 
In  parts  it  seems  to  me  to  be  anything  but  tentative 
— it  appears,  in  fact,  to  be  definite,  even  dogmatic, 
and  here  and  there  to  be  almost  contemptuous  in  its 
view  of  an  elder  school.  After  reading  Mr.  Hor- 
ton's  book  what  will  the  ordinary  Christian  reader 
have  in  place  of  the  old  Bible  ?  Mr.  Horton  himself 
says  he  will  have  "  nothing  more  than  a  series  of 
tentative  suggestions."  Is  the  exchange  worth  mak- 
ing ?  Or  does  the  author  mean  that  the  "  tentative 
suggestions "  refer  only  to  points  of  criticism  and 
history?  If  so,  is  it  not  a  book  for  experts  only? 
And  if  for  experts  only,  was  it  wise  to  send  it  broad- 
cast over  the  whole  Church  ?  The  author  designates 
the  view  which  he  opposes,  with  undoubted  sincerity 
and  often  with  most  pathetic  eloquence,  "  the  un- 
proved assumptions  of  the  orthodox  tradition,"  and 
his  own  view  he  describes  as  "  nothing  more  than  a 
series  of  tentative  suggestions."  What  is  the  exact 
difference  between  "unproved"  and  "tentative"? 
And  what  is  a  man  profited  if  he  exchange  "  as- 
sumptions "  for  "  suggestions  "  ?  If  "  tentative,"  what 
is  the  length  of  the  lease?  And  when  the  lease  is 
held  by  two  holders,  which  of  them  has  the  sole  right 


NOTES  AND  COMMENTS.  \6j 

to  give  it  up?  These  inquiries  become  important 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  subjects  affect  spirit- 
ual education.  We  are  "  reconstructing  "  the  Bible  : 
we  are  not  editing  a  private  letter.  On  the  title- 
page  of  "  Verbum  Dei  "  Mr.  Horton  quotes  a  sen- 
tence from  Hermann  Schultz  to  the  effect  that  a 
living  religion  has  prophets,  and  a  dead  or  unknown 
religion  has  only  writings  or  documents.  Thus  dis- 
tinguished names  are  not  always  associated  with  very 
original  remarks.  When  Mr.  Horton  offers  "  nothing 
more  than  a  series  of  tentative  suggestions,"  I  recall 
a  sentence  from  a  still  more  distinguished  German, 
even  from  Goethe  himself,  who  says :  "  If  a  man 
sets  out  to  write  a  book,  let  him  put  down  only 
what  he  knows — I  have  guesses  enough  of  my  own." 

Some  of  Mr.  Horton's  epithets  in  "  Verbum  Dei  " 
were  perhaps  hastily  chosen.  They  are  not  like  him- 
self in  tone.  As  applied  to  men  who  take  what  is 
called  the  old  view  I  cannot  commend  them.  Here 
are  specimens:  careless  (p.  103),  thoughtless  (p.  104), 
loose  and  careless  (p.  106),  sleek  (p.  106),  unthinking 
(p.  107),  baseless  (p.  107),  inexact  and  inappropriate 
(p.  113)-     I    should    have  thought   that  the  author 


1 68  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

would  have  looked  upon  "  sleek "  as  ecclesiastical 
slang  and  would  have  avoided  it,  for  no  man  can  be 
daintier  than  he  in  his  use  of  words.  The  point 
is  principally  important  as  indicating  a  spirit.  The 
spirit  of  contempt  is  not  the  spirit  of  scholarship. 
Nor  is  it  the  spirit  of  reconstructive  criticism.  Nor 
is  it  the  spirit  of  Christ.  In  his  preface  Mr.  Hor- 
ton  prays  "  that  this  little  volume  may  come  to  his 
brothers  in  the  ministry  with  a  genuine  message 
from  God."  Which  brothers?  The  "careless," 
"thoughtless,"  "sleek,"  "  unthinking,"  and  "inex- 
act"? Then  will  his  circulation  be  large  or  small? 
We  must  not  think  men  "  sleek  "  because  they  dif- 
fer from  us.  A  man  may  take  even  Mr.  Horton's 
view  and  yet  not  be  "careless."  We  should  give 
each  other  credit  for  good  faith  all  around. 

Mr.  Horton  states  this  view : 

"  If  the  teacher  is  igno- 
rant of  God's  more  recent 
utterances  the  world  will 
not  unnaturally  suppose 
that  his  authority  on  the 
more  ancient  utterances 
is  open  to  question." 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  169 

But  that  is  exactly  what  the  world  says  about  the 
Bible !  Men  say  quite  freely,  If  the  Bible  is  wrong 
in  facts,  what  guarantee  have  we  that  it  is  right  in 
morals?  If  we  answer,  The  Bible  treats  of  morals 
and  not  of  facts,  the  retort  is  that  we  are  begging 
the  question;  we  are  undertaking  to  support  a  post 
hoc;  we  are  special  pleaders.  But  is  Mr.  Horton 
prepared  to  have  his  rule,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  applied 
to  himself?  Let  us  see.  The  very  first  sentence  in 
"  Verbum  Dei"  opens  thus: 

"  When  the  invitation 
came  to  me  to  cross  the 
Atlantic  and  deliver  the 
Lyman  Abbott  Lecture  on 
Preaching,"  etc. 

But  no  such  invitation  ever  came  to  him,  ever  could 
come  to  him!  There  is  no  Lyman  Abbott  Lecture 
on  Preaching!  Here  is  a  man  describing  other 
men  as  <l  careless,"  "thoughtless,"  "unthinking," 
and  "  inexact,"  and  yet  the  'first  sentence  in  the 
very  book  which  contains  these  epithets  is  itself  a 
misstatement  of  fact!  If  we  are  at  liberty  to  say 
that  a  man  who  cannot  state  a  fact  cannot  state  a 
doctrine,    or    that    a    man    who    does    not   know    the 


170  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

modern  cannot  speak  authoritatively  upon  the  an- 
cient, what  shall  we  do  with  a  book  which  begins 
with  a  mistake?  And  not  a  mistake  about  some 
other  man,  but  a  mistake  about  the  author  himself! 
He  writes  the  mistake,  prints  the  mistake  in  italics, 
dates  the  mistake,  and  signs  the  mistake,  and  hopes 
that  the  book  which  opens  with  the  mistake  will  come 
to  his  brothers  in  the  ministry  with  a  genuine  mes- 
sage from  God!  The  mistake  is  made  the  more 
glaring  by  the  author  describing  other  men  and 
their  views  as  careless,  thoughtless,  loose,  unthink- 
ing, baseless,  inexact  *  and  inappropriate !  The  mis- 
take may  have  been  corrected  in  other  editions,  but 
that  is  not  the  point.  If  Mr.  Horton  had  died,  as 
Ezra  did,  the  mistake  would  never  have  been  cor- 
rected by  his  own  hand.  We  do  not  allow  Ezra  to 
publish  a  second  edition,  revised,  corrected,  amended, 
and  annotated !  This  instance,  probably  of  a  mere 
slip  of  the  pen  or  a  momentary  lapse  of  memory, 
must  not  be  brought  up  against  the  whole  line  of  a 
man's  ministry,  or  what  ministry  could  stand?  At 
the  same  time  it  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  pos- 
sibility that  in  the  act  of  stating  a  simple  matter  of 
personal  history,  meant  to  be  absolutely  literal  and 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  I  7  I 

real,  a  man  may  commit  an  almost  incredible  mis- 
take. We  should  be  careful  how  we  call  other  men 
"inexact."  "With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall 
be  measured  to  you  again." 

I  knew  a  minister  who  made  an  idol  of  Accuracy, 
who  had  to  be  drawn  out  of  many  a  pit  even  on  the 
Sabbath  day. 

In  "  Verbum  Dei  "  (p.  46)  the  author  says: 

"...  It  would  be  mis- 
leading indeed  if  we  were 
to  argue  from  the  conver- 
sation between  Abraham 
and  the  Lord  concerning 
the  destruction  of  Sodom 
that  we  to-day  may  expect 
to  hold  a  conversation  in 
that  form." 

Why  ?  What  is  to  render  it  impossible  ?  If  it  ever 
did  occur,  why  may  it  not  occur  again?  But  why 
trouble  about  Abraham  when  the  Higher  criti- 
cism has  proved  that  there  never  was  such  a  person  ? 
Abraham  was  a  tribe  or  an  ideal;  anything  but  a 
literal  or  historical  individual.  The  Higher  criticism 
tells  a  man  that  he  may  as  certainly  commune  with 


172  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

God  as  Abraham  ever  did,  and  when  he  accepts  the 
comforting  doctrine  he  is  told  by  the  same  criticism 
that  no  such  man  as  Abraham  ever  lived!  That 
Abraham  was  an  eponymous  hero !  Only  eighteen 
pages  further  on  (p.  64)  the  author  says  :  "  The  word 
of  the  Lord  comes  to  men  to-day  just  as  it  came  to 
the  prophets  of  Israel."  Then  why  need  the  partic- 
ular "form"  be  any  difficulty  in  the  Lord's  way? 
Has  the  Lord  discontinued  the  form  of  dialogue  ? 
Is  it  all  mythical  ?  I  claim  that  there  are  circum- 
stances under  which  a  myth  may  be  the  only  possi- 
ble fact.  I  further  claim  that  even  a  myth  may  be 
a  divine  instrument,  and  a  Vision  itself  may  be  an 
Incarnation.  We  must  not  think  that  even  if  the 
four  Gospels  are  mythical  we  have  got  rid  of  them. 
Possibly  the  literal  is  only  the  pedestal  on  which  the 
ideal  must  stand.  What  if  men  themselves  be  only 
masks  or  myths  or  visions  or  shadows,  or  modes  of 
consciousness,  awaiting  revelation  and  the  heavenly 
house?  We  talk  sometimes  of  the  Bible  writers  as 
if  they  were  original  authors,  or  as  if  they  had  a 
consciousness  apart  from  their  subject.  I  find  no 
present  difficulty  in  taking  a  different  view  of  the 
matter.     From    my   standpoint   the    man    himself — 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  173 

Abraham  or  Jeremiah,  Ezra  or  Paul — is  a  revelation, 
perhaps  he  himself  is  the  revelation!  We  seem  to 
argue,  not  always  by  intention,  that  man  is  quite  an 
independent  actor  and  that  he  works  out  his  own  will 
in  his  own  way.  Not  from  my  point  of  view.  I 
believe  that  God  may  turn  mistakes  into  channels  of 
revelation.  I  believe  that  God  may  inspire  a  man  to 
make  literary  mistakes,  that  by  so  doing  man  may 
learn  his  proper  place  and  starve  his  pride  by  eating 
the  dust  of  humiliation.  How  much  does  every  wise- 
man  owe  even  to  his  blunders!  How  much  does 
civilization  owe  to  the  hard  soil  and  blunt  tools!  I 
do  not  expect  my  meaning  to  be  universally  per- 
ceived. I  am  endeavoring  to  show  that  man  does 
not  always  know  what  he  is  doing;  that  God  may 
turn  man's  wrath  to  his  own  praise  and  may  restrain 
the  remainder;  yea,  that  God  may  cause  our  mis- 
takes, our  infirmities,  our  vanities,  and  our  lapses  to 
fall  out  to  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel.  Never  let 
ereignty  be  modified.  Never  let  sovereignty  slip 
from  the  divine  grasp.  It  brings  us  face  to  face  with 
appalling  mysteries;  yet  otherwise  we  should  be 
plunged  into  despair.  I  cannot  now  reconcile  much 
that  I  see  around  me  with   the   exercise  of  divine 


174  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

sovereignty,  yet  that  sovereignty  is  my  one  hope  of 
ultimate  illumination  and  harmony. 

Mr.  Horton  says  (p.  150),  "The  Bible  begins  with 
a  Poem  of  Creation."  Who  told  him  so?  All 
writers  have  not  taken  this  view.  Which  of  them,  if 
any,  has  the  right  to  decide,  in  a  way  which  quietly 
ignores  all  the  others,  what  it  is  ?  Even  histories,  as 
we  all  know,  may  be  written  in  poetry.  What  if  the 
Bible  itself  is  a  Poem  from  beginning  to  end  ?  What 
if  the  poet  alone  can  understand  it?  Not  the 
rhymester,  but  the  poet,  the  man  whose  heart-eyes 
are  wide  open  ?  And  what  if  the  men  who  know  all 
about  syntax  and  Chaldean  cosmogony  and  the  clay 
tablets  of  Assurbanipal  be  the  only  men  who  can 
never  understand  the  Bible?  It  would  be  quite  in 
harmony  with  much  that  we  know  of  Providence  if 
God  were  to  do  without  them  and  send  meaner  men 
upon  his  errands.  It  is  wonderful  how  much  good 
God  has  done  through  ignorant  men,  blundering, 
ungrammatical,  unphilosophical  men,  and  wonderful 
how  he  has  now  and  then  touched  some  poor  hearts 
even  by  "Mesopotamia."  Collecting,  as  far  as  I 
can,  the  records  of  great  preachers,  evangelists,  and 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  175 

missionaries,  I  have  been  astounded  how  much  good 
has  been  done  by  earnest  men  who  probably  never 
heard  of  the  clay  tablets  of  Assurbanipal ;  and  quite 
as  astounding  has  it  been  to  me  to  find  so  little  set 
down  to  the  credit  of  the  men  who  discovered  the 
tablets,  and  deciphered  their  meaning.  Far  from 
having  any  prejudice  against  such  men,  I  heartily 
wish  them  long  life  and  great  joy  in  Babylon.  I  am 
thankful  that  some  men  are  so  constituted  that  they 
could  not  be  happy  without  clay  tablets.  I  think 
the  world  owes  a  good  deal  to  them,  yet  I  am  by  no 
means  sure  that  they  know  anything  about  Revela- 
tion. They  may,  however,  know  a  good  deal  about 
it,  but  their  spiritual  knowledge  is  not  the  result  of 
their  Assyriology. 

One  of  my  difficulties  with  present-day  biblical 
criticism  is  that  in  many  cases  the  critics  are  theo- 
retically on  one  side  and  practically  on  the  other. 
They  repudiate  the  idea  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word 
of  God,  and  yet  in  other  sentences  they  are  willing 
that  it  should  be  substantial]}-  regarded  as  such. 
Mr.  Horton  says  (" Verbum  Dei,"  p.  104):  "I  say 
there  is  no  foundation  in  the  Bible  itself  for  the  com- 


176  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

mon  practice  of  speaking  of  it  as  the  Word  of  God." 
But  Mr.  Horton  says  in  "  Revelation  and  the  Bible," 
p.  12:  "  On  the  whole,  it  is  perhaps  safest  to  cling, 
at  least  provisionally,  to  the  idea  that  all  Revelation  is 
really  the  revealing  of  God."  Before  this,  on  p.  io, 
he  says :  "  They,  too,  are  not  far  wrong  who  speak 
of  the  Bible  as  the  Book  of  God,  though  of  course 
it  is  a  term  foreign  to  the  Bible  itself."  And  yet 
in  "Inspiration  and  the  Bible"  (preface,  p.  10)  he 
says:  "  I  hardly  know  an  argument  waged  at  the 
present  day  on  the  Secularist  platforms  which  does 
not  derive  all  its  cogency  frrom  the  false  impression 
which  we  have  ourselves  given  about  the  nature  and 
claim  of  the  Bible."  He  describes  those  who  say 
that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God  as  careless, 
thoughtless,  unthinking,  loose,  and  inexact,  and  then 
he  says  they  are  not  far  wrong  who  speak  of  the 
Bible  as  the  Book  of  God.  If  this  title  is  "  foreign 
to  the  Bible,"  why  use  it?  I  do  not  understand  the 
position.  The  mischief  is  that  there  is  great  danger 
of  forming  some  sort  of  double  conscience.  I  do 
not  say  that  this  danger  besets  other  minds ;  I  only 
say  that  in  my  own  case  the  danger  would  be  ex- 
treme.    A  striking  instance  of  what  I  mean  by  the 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 


*77 


dual  method,  or  the  method  of  apparently  being  on 
both  sides,  is  given  in  u  Verb um  Dei  "  : 


"  The  unthinking  dog- 
ma of  orthodoxy  that  the 
Bible  as  such  is  the  Word 
of  God,"  etc.,  p.  107. 


"  The  Bible  itself  is  in 
so  unique  and  peculiar  a 
sense  the  Word  of  God," 
etc.,  p.  155. 


The  ground  would  be  much  clearer  if  the  followers 
of  modern  criticism  could  say :  Here  is  a  very  old 
book  called  the  Bible :  in  every  sense  it  is  a  most 
remarkable  book :  it  abounds  in  narratives,  allego- 
ries, visions,  misstatement,  self-contradictory  stories, 
beautiful  reflections,  brilliant  prophecies,  and  splen- 
did conceptions :  who  wrote  it,  when  it  was  written, 
for  what  purpose  it  was  written,  are  points  upon 
which  opinion  is  strongly  divided;  still  it  is  a  won- 
derful book,  and  we  think  it  may,  if  read  in  the  spirit 
of  present-day  inspiration,  be  used  with  great  ad- 
vantage in  the  spiritual  training  of  the  soul.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  is  substantially  what  modern 
criticism  comes  to.  It  is  the  position  of  rationalism. 
That  rationalism  is  certainly  neither  flippant  nor 
profane,  nor  is  it  inconsistent  with  a  reverent  theory 
of  present-day  inspiration. 


178  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Mr.  Horton  zealously  maintains  his  faith  in  revela- 
tion. Upon  that  point  he  is  definite  and  in  a  man- 
ner passionate.  Yet  every  single  book  in  the  canon 
is  wrong  in  some  point  or  feature ;  in  some  instances 
palpably  and  ridiculously  wrong;  not  a  single  book 
as  orthodoxy  has  immemorially  accepted  it  is  left 
without  some  degree  of  challenge ;  dates  are  wrong ; 
chronology  is  wrong;  genealogies  are  wrong;  au- 
thorships are  wrong;  grammar  is  wrong:  quotation 
is  wrong;  and  yet  the  Bible  contains  a  revelation. 
Mr.  Horton's  estimate  of  the  Apostle  Paul  would 
once  have  been  accounted  scandalous.  Even  now, 
in  face  of  all  changes,  I  find  it  impossible  to  accept  it 
A  few  quotations  will  make  my  meaning  clear : 

"  To  suppose  that  there 
is  any  Divine  revelation  in 
the  command  to  bring  the 
cloke,  and  the  book,  and 
especially  the  parchments 
.  .  .  is  a  rednctio  ad 
absurdum"  etc. 

I  cannot  at  this  moment  see  any  absurdity  in  the 
claim.  Providence  is  manifold.  There  is  a  revela- 
tion of  providence  as  well  as  of  redemption.     I  want 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  179 

to  see  God  in  little  things  as  well  as  in  great.  I 
want  God  to  reveal  himself  through  apostolic  neces- 
sity and  the  by-ways  and  conditions  of  apostolic 
life.  I  really  do  not  see  the  absurdity,  and  therefore 
I  cannot  join  in  the  somber  mirth. 

"  When  we  turn  from 
the  mere  human  elements 
in  St.  Paul's  writings," 

I  "  boldly  challenge  "  Mr.  Horton  tc  point  out  where 
the  Apostle  Paul  calls  himself  "  St.  Paul."  Where 
does  he  "  claim  "  to  be  St.  Paul? 

"  to  his  actual  mistakes," 
etc. 

This  is  definite.     Now  we  wait  for  examples,  and 

Mr.  Horton  responds: 

"  No  one,  for  example, 
can  study  carefully  the 
use  which  he  makes  of 
the  Old  Testament  with- 
out observing  the  inexact- 
ness of  his  quotations  and 
the  interpretation,  often 
quite    unjustified    by    the 


180  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

original  context,  which  he 
puts  upon  the  venerable 
words." 

I  protest  against  the  large  and  easy  assumptions. 
Paul  I  know,  but  some  of  his  critics  I  do  not  know. 
According  to  this  criticism  Paul  quotes  inexactly  and 
interprets  unjustifiably.  Then  at  what  points  is  he 
to  be  trusted?  Mr.  Horton  would  answer:  Come 
to  Christ;  receive  his  Spirit  and  you  will  know. 
But  have  not  our  old  teachers  come  to  Christ? 
Have  they  not  received  the  Holy  Ghost?  Have 
they  been  teaching  us  in  darkness?  Has  the  true 
light  been  withheld  until  to-day?     Again: 

"  To  quote  him  (Paul) 
as  an  exegete  of  the 
ancient  Scriptures  would 
be  obviously  absurd." 

Why  obviously?  Why  prefer  Mr.  Horton  to  the 
Apostle  Paul,  "  an  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  "  ?  I  do 
not  say  that  he  is  not  preferable,  I  only  ask  for  some 
reason  for  establishing  the  preference.  In  other 
qualifications  Mr.  Horton  would  decline  rivalry; 
why  challenge  it  on  the  ground  of  correctly  inter- 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  I  8  I 

preting  the  ancient  Scriptures?  Take  another  in- 
stance : 

"  But  the  most  striking 

of  the  mistakes  into  which 
the  Apostle,  owing  to  the 
necessary  limitations  of 
the  most  inspired  teachers, 
fell,  was  the  conviction 
that  the  Parousia,  or  sec- 
ond coming  of  the  Lord, 
was  to  be  in  that  gener- 
ation." 

And  yet  some  well-instructed  men  have  contended 
that  the  Parousia  is  an  accomplished  fact!  They 
may  be  right  or  they  may  be  wrong,  yet  that  is  their 
contention,  and  they  have  supported  it  with  much 
learning  and  argument.  The  expression  with  which 
I  am  chiefly  concerned  is — "  the  most  striking  of  the 
mistakes"  of  the  Apostle;  implying  that  the  mis- 
takes are  not  a  few,  but  that  at  one  point  he  excels 
himself  in  the  misinterpretation  of  providence.  The 
calm  and  easy  manner  in  which  Mr.  Horton  snubs 
the  whole  Bible — regarding  it  as  a  literary  compend 
— will  not  convey  to  those  who  do  not  know  him  a 
proper  impression  of  his  genuine  modesty.      Even  to 


1 82  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

those  who  do  know  him,  and  hold  him  in  honor 
for  his  works'  sake,  it  must  appear  remarkable  how 
he  can  traverse  the  whole  field  of  biblical  revelation, 
find  fault  with  every  writer,  correct  every  writer's 
blunders,  misinterpretations,  and  general  stupidity, 
snub  the  apostles,  and  tell  the  evangelists  exactly 
where  they  go  wrong,  and  dismiss  them  all  as  the 
very  clumsiest  clerks  that  ever  dipped  a  pen,  but 
who,  on  the  whole,  had  a  distinct  and  sublime  rev- 
elation from  God.  Mr.  Horton  may  be  right.  God 
has  most  certainly  chosen  many  strange  agents,  and 
it  may  be  only  another  of  the  mysteries  of  his  provi- 
dence that  he  corrects  a  ministry  of  blunders  by  a 
ministry  of  disclaimed  infallibility.  The  issue  of  such 
a  course  is  the  practical  abolition  of  the  Bible.  To 
this  it  must  come.  The  proof  we  can  only  find  in 
the  coming  and  going  of  years.  I  do  not  look  upon 
the  Apostle  Paul  as  a  man  who  had  a  kind  of  mantle 
of  inspiration  which  he  put  on  and  off  as  occasion 
required  or  suggested.  I  regard  him  as  an  inspired 
MAN;  a  man  who  walked  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit ;  he  lived  and  moved  and  had  his 
being  in  God ;  he  was  of  the  very  body  and  spirit  of 
the  Lord ;  he  fought  one  fight,  kept  one  faith,  served 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  1 83 

one  cross  ;  his  soul  was  steeped  in  God  ;  in  his  speech 
there  were  no  "  mere  obiter  dicta  "  ;  in  his  correspond- 
ence there  was  no  mere,  ornament ;  the  man  was 
crucified  with  Christ ;  for  him  to  live  was  Christ ;  he 
counted  all  things  loss  for  Christ — this  is  hardly  the 
man  whom  we  care  to  see  charged  with  "inexact" 
quotation,  "unjustifiable"  comment,  "irrelevant" 
application,  and  glaring  "  mistakes."  I  grieve  to  say 
that  these  epithets  and  terms  are  applied  by  Mr. 
Horton  to  the  Apostle.  If  it  be  asked,  Are  not  all 
Christians  inspired  men  ?  I  answer,  Yes,  as  to  char- 
acter, as  to  holiness ;  but  as  to  gifts  and  trusts  and 
leaderships  I  answer,  No. 


In  "  Faith  and  Criticism,"  p.  9,  Professor  Bennett, 
who  has  won  a  very  high  reputation  as  a  professor 
of  Old  Testament  literature  and  criticism,  and  who 
is  intensely  evangelical  in  his  love  of  Christ  and  his 
belief  in  the  spiritual  uses  of  the  Bible,  says:  "The 
early  Fathers  took  over  from  the  Rabbis  a  collection 
of  baseless  theories";  but  what  is  the  precise  critical 
difference  between  "  a  collection  of  baseless  theories  " 
and  "a  series  of  tentative  suggestions'1?     I  cannot 


1 84  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

exactly  appraise  the  difference.  The  Professor  says 
(p.  20) :  "  We  are  getting  accustomed  to  hear  with- 
out any  special  emotion  that  in  Ruth,  Daniel,  and 
Esther  a  beautiful  and  instructive  fabric  has  been 
reared  upon  a  slender  historical  basis."  Is  this  argu- 
ment? Is  the  cessation  or  abatement  of  emotion  a 
proof?  If  so,  we  must  not  forget  that  it  painfully 
applies  to  the  hearing  of  the  gospel  itself.  But  it  is 
not  proof;  it  is  not  intended  as  an  argument,  and  in 
many  honorable  instances  it  is  not  a  fact.  On  p.  26 
the  Professor  says :  "  The  books  from  Genesis  to 
Chronicles  are  not  so  much  histories  as  homilies  with 
a  profusion  of  historical  illustration."  This  would 
seem  to  make  the  matter  worse  and  worse.  If  the 
text  is  false,  what  can  the  homily  be?  If  the  his- 
torical illustration  is  not  reliable,  how  can  any  intel- 
ligent trust  be  put  in  the  homily  ?  Suppose  a  sermon 
or  homily  should  be  preached  upon  the  earthquake 
which  occurred  in  Italy  in  1587;  suppose  the  hom- 
ily should  be  rich  and  pathetic  in  doctrine  and  illus- 
tration ;  suppose  it  should  have  deeply  impressed 
generations  of  men  in  many  lands ;  and  suppose  that 
no  such  earthquake  ever  occurred  in  the  history  of 
Italy ;  I  fancy  that  if  the  preacher  offered  to  preach 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  1S5 

a  homily  upon  the  great  Mexican  catastrophe  which 
occurred  the  year  after  the  earthquake  in  Italy,  he 
would  find  his  "  occupation  gone."  Men  find  it  as 
difficult  to  accept  a  true  sermon  from  a  false  text  as 
to  discover  a  straight  line  in  a  corkscrew.  It  will 
show  in  part  what  the  Old  Testament  is  coming  to 
if  we  take  another  sentence  from  Professor  Bennett's 
essay,  p.  31:  "No  doubt  much  that  is  most  char- 
acteristic and  valuable  in  Christian  thought  is  found 
in  germ  and  suggestion  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures." 
I  must  very  earnestly  protest  against  this  particular 
form  of  putting  the  case  if  the  New  Testament  is 
supposed  to  represent  Christian  thought.  If  the 
New  Testament  is  not  included,  I  do  not  see  why 
the  remark  was  made;  if  it  was  included,  I  do  not 
see  how  it  could  have  been  made.  The  Professor 
bewilders  me  by  the  very  next  sentence  in  his  essay : 
"  Hut,  through  failing  to  exercise  his  imagination, 
the  Christian  reader  often  sees  a  dense  forest  where 
there  were  actually  only  a  few  scattered  saplings." 
I  think  the  imagination  must  have  been  very  vigor- 
ously exercised  if  three  or  four  saplings  were  mul- 
tiplied into  Bashan  or  Lebanon.  If  a  man  told  me 
that   he   had   seen    Mount   Sinai   when    he   had   only 


1 86  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

seen  a  grindstone,  the  word  "  imagination "   would 
instantly  occur  to  me. 

The  former  difficulty,  that  of  a  kind  of  dual  posi- 
tion— I  would  say  see-saw  position  but  for  fear  of 
being  misunderstood — occurs  in  the  case  of  Professor 
Bennett.  He  says  (p.  20)  that  though  we  are  get- 
ting accustomed  to  hear  certain  things  about  Ruth, 
Daniel,  and  Esther,  it  would  be  a  very  different  thing, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  Christian  public,  if  Abraham 
and  the  patriarchs  were  called  in  question.  We 
may  infer,  then,  that  Abraham  and  the  patriarchs 
are  quite  secure,  at  least  in  the  estimation  of  "  the 
Christian  public,"  and  inferentially  in  Professor  Ben- 
nett's. But  on  p.  22  the  Professor  says :  "  The  earli- 
est history  of  the  patriarchs  is  separated  by  many 
centuries  from  the  patriarchs  themselves."  That  puts 
one  nail  in  their  coffin.  Still,  Abraham  remains. 
Not  a  hair  of  his  head  must  be  touched.  It  is 
something  for  the  Christian  public  to  have  retained 
Abraham.  But  have  we  retained  him?  On  the 
very  same  page  (22)  Mr.  Bennett  says:  "Docu- 
ments of  the  early  monarchy  can  only  shed  a  dim 
and  uncertain  light  on  the  time  of  Abraham."     How 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  187 

do  we  know,  then,  that  we  are  quite  sure  of  Abraham  ? 
Does  he  suffer  from  the  "  dim  and  uncertain  light  " 
which  settles  on  his  time?  Some  critics  (p.  23)  have 
set  forth  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs  as  personifications  and  representatives  of 
Israel  in  the  various  phases  of  its  early  history ;  they 
are  accounted,  Professor  Bennett  says,  "  not  as  his- 
torical persons"  but  "eponymous  heroes."  So  far, 
therefore,  as  these  particular  critics  are  concerned, 
even  Abraham  is  not  made  of  much  account.  Pres- 
ently we  may  get  accustomed  even  to  his  disap- 
pearance. Professor  Bennett  says,  however  (p.  23), 
"  There  are  weighty  arguments  to  be  waged  on  the 
other  side."  One  of  these  weighty  arguments  is  the 
assurance  of  "  a  distinguished  critic  "  (anonymous) 
"  that  when  we  come  to  Abraham  a  true  historical 
instinct  tells  us  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  authen- 
tic record  of  a  real  historical  person."  But  what 
about  the  "  some  "  who  made  Abraham  eponymous? 
Was  the  "  true  historical  instinct "  not  available  to 
them  ?  And,  after  all,  what  is  this  "  true  historical 
instinct  "  ?  Who  has  it  ?  Who  keeps  it  ?  Who  dis- 
penses it?  This  "  historical  instinct  "  operates  within 
some  sort  of  circle.     This  is  how  Professor  Bennett 


1 88  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

puts  it  on  p.  24 :  "  The  verdict  of  the  historical  in- 
stinct in  favor  of  Abraham  is  only  conclusive  to 
those  whose  instincts  give  the  decision."  This  is 
fatal.  Abraham  is  turned  over  to  the  "  historical 
instinct."  If  you  have  the  instinct  you  have  Abra- 
ham, but  in  the  absence  of  the  instinct  Abraham  is 
"as  good  as  dead."  I  am  not  sure  whether  this  is 
Professor  Bennett's  own  opinion.  His  words  are  not 
quite  clear  to  my  mind.  At  this  point  he  distinctly 
refers  to  "  the  Christian  public,"  and  perhaps  he  does 
not,  for  the  nonce,  include  the  critics,  regarding  them 
rather  in  their  professional  capacity,  and  especially 
regarding  them  as  in  advance  of  "  the  Christian  pub- 
lic," and  gradually  breaking  the  surprise  with  which 
that  public  may  one  day  hear  that  a  personal  and 
historical  Abraham  never  existed ;  that,  in  fact,  he 
was  simply  an  eponymous  hero!  Professor  Bennett 
thinks  "  a  general  consensus  of  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject, or  the  agreement  of  a  large  majority  of  histori- 
cal experts,  might  enable  us  to  establish  the  histo- 
ricity of  the  narratives  on  internal  evidence  alone." 
But  what  is  the  good  of  telling  us  of  what  would 
happen  if  we  had  what  is  not  in  existence  ?  But  is  it 
not  in  existence?     I  have  only  Professor  Bennett's 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  189 

authority  to  rest  upon.  This  is  his  sentence :  "  But 
no  such  consensus  or  agreement  exists "  (p.  24). 
Then  where  is  Abraham  ?  Then  what  is  the  posi 
tion  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  the  polemical  skep- 
tic on  the  one  hand  and  the  devout  inquirer  on  the 
other?  Professor  Bennett's  answer  makes  me  sad. 
I  give  it  in  his  own  disheartening  words:  "The 
Church  must  be  prepared  to  find  that  it  cannot  at 
present  give  an  obviously  conclusive  answer  to  the 
polemical  skeptic,  and  even  that  it  cannot  always  on 
intellectual  ground  remove  the  difficulties  felt  by 
devout  and  earnest  inquirers  "  (p.  24).  That  is  an 
unhappy  position.  It  is,  also,  a  position  which  in- 
volves a  good  deal  more  than  is  expressed  within 
the  limits  of  its  own  terms.  If  neither  the  polemical 
skeptic  nor  the  earnest  inquirer  can  be  satisfied  on 
this  point,  how  many  other  points  would  be  included 
within  the  same  inability?  Is  Professor  Bennett, 
then,  prepared  to  let  the  "  historicity  "  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  and  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  go?  He  is 
not.  He  has  two  sources  of  encouragement,  and  I 
deeply  regret  that  I  am  unable  to  avail  myself  of 
them.  The  student  has  a  "sense  of  the  vivid  real- 
ism of   the  history  of  the  patriarchs":    that  is  the 


I9Q  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

first  source  of  encouragement,  and  the  second  is  the 
student's  "  hopes  as  to  the  possibilities  of  future  ex- 
cavations." The  second  is  a  poor  foundation  to  rest 
upon.  What  if  the  excavations  should  turn  out  the 
other  way  ?  Then  what  will  become  of  the  personal 
Abraham  and  the  patriarchs  ?  But  is  there  any  pos- 
sibility of  the  excavations  playing  us  false?  This  is 
Professor  Bennett's  dubious  answer :  "  We  are  also 
encouraged  to  hope  for  very  much  from  the  inscrip- 
tions, though  the  specimens  of  apologetic  evidence 
already  offered  from  those  sources  are  not  encourag- 
ing "  (p.  23).  This  would  be  disquieting  enough, 
but  it  becomes  something  like  intellectual  torment 
when  we  read  on  the  very  next  page,  "  Critics  can 
scarcely  discount  for  ready  money  the  possibilities 
of  archaeological  investigation."  Where,  then,  is 
Abraham,  about  whose  security  we  thought  there 
was  no  doubt?  Professor  Bennett  says  (p.  25): 
"  The  Church  will  not  venture  to  interpose  between 
the  sinner  and  his  Saviour  the  necessity  of  arriving 
at  a  correct  conclusion  on  the  existence  of  Abra- 
ham." Yet  Christ  made  more  of  Abraham  than  of 
any  other  character  in  the  Old  Testament.  He 
names  him  more  frequently  and   dwells  upon   him 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  191 

with  more  appreciation,  and  appeals  persistently  to 
him  in  contending  with  the  unbelieving  Jews.  On 
p.  29  Professor  Bennett  seems  to  join  the  "some" 
of  p.  25  who  look  upon  Abraham  and  others  as 
representations  and  ideals  rather  than  historical 
individuals.  I  quote  the  Professor's  own  words : 
"  The  importance  of  Abraham  and  Daniel  does  not 
lie  in  their  being  unique  personages,  but  in  their 
representing  Hebrew  ideals,  the  highest  life  of 
Israel."  So  Abraham,  about  whom  the  Christian 
public  might  feel  so  sure,  concerning  whom  "  a  dis- 
tinguished critic  "  said,  "  A  true  historical  instinct  tells 
us  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  authentic  record  of 
a  real  historical  personage,"  now  becomes  an  ideal 
of  the  highest  life  of  Israel!  His  very  existence  is 
put  negatively  by  Professor  Bennett,  who  says  on 
pp.  23,  24 :  <(  No  one  will  maintain  that  the  existence 
of  Abraham  has  been  disproved,  or  that  the  narratives 
of  the  patriarchs  have  no  foundation  in  real  history  "  ! 
Surely  Abraham  is  fast  disappearing!  Yet  Professor 
Bennett  has  a  singular  comfort  for  us  even  here ;  for 
on  p.  29  he  says :  "  If  a  haze  of  uncertainty  dims  the 
features  of  Abraham,  we  see  more  clearly  the  simple 
facts  ...   of  his  children."     An  ideal  man  has  real 


192  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

children!  A  non-historical  personage  has  a  large 
historical  family !  Now  read  a  little  in  the  light  of 
the  "  Hebrew  ideal  "  theory  : 

And  an  eponymous  hero  was  four 
score  and  six  years  old  when  Hagar 
bare  Ishmael  to  the  Hebrew  ideal. 
And  when  an  eponymous  hero  was 
ninety  years  old  the  Lord  appeared 
to  him,  and  the  eponymous  hero 
fell  on  his  face,  and  Jehovah  talked 
with  the  Hebrew  ideal.  .  .  .  The 
eponymous  hero  fell  on  his  face, 
and  laughed ;  .  .  .  and  the  epony- 
mous hero  was  circumcised  in  the 
flesh  of  his  foreskin ;  .  .  .  and  the 
Hebrew  ideal  sat  in  the  tent  door 
in  the  heat  of  the  day  ;  .  .  .  and  the 
eponymous  hero  gat  up  early  in  the 
morning ;  .  .  .  and  the  eponymous 
hero  said  of  Sarah  his  wife,  She  is 
my  sister. 

For  my  own  part,  I  cannot  follow  this  reasoning, 
nor  can  I  believe  that  it  will  ever  do  any  spiritual 
and  lasting  good.  I  will  go  farther  and  express  a 
wonder  whether  an  ancient  document  for  which  no 
inspiration  had  been  claimed  would  have  been  treated 
in  this  manner.  Are  not  the  critics  simply  making 
out  a  case?     Is  not  their  action  ex  post  facto  ?     Are 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  193 

not  the  critics  groping  about  for  some  kind  of  inspi- 
ration of  which  they  cannot  see  any  adequate  evi- 
dence ?  Why  do  they  not  take  up  a  rationalistic 
position  and  lecture  upon  Abraham  as  they  would 
lecture  upon  Hector  or  Ulysses?  This  painful  en- 
deavor to  find  inspiration,  without  finding  it,  would, 
were  the  case  my  own,  put  my  conscience  in  serious 
peril.  Personally,  I  should  prefer  to  treat  the  Old 
Testament  as  a  very  wonderful  record  which  supplied 
many  points  of  interest  upon  which  a  religious  mind 
might  profitably  meditate.  For  the  present  at  least 
I  am  thankful  to  be  able  to  take  up  a  very  different 
position.  I  accept  the  Old  Testament  as  inspired, 
notwithstanding  any  flaws  in  the  human  workman- 
ship. '  To  me  it  is  a  revelation  of  God  and  his  Sover- 
eignty, of  the  Father  and  his  Providence,  of  the 
Creator  and  his  Dominion.  It  is  infinitely  majestic 
and  solemn.  Without  God  the  Holy  Ghost  it  never 
could  have  been  written.  In  it  I  feel  the  breath  and 
see  the  very  finger  of  God.  I  am  not  dependent  in 
any  degree  whatever,  or  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
upon  "tentative  suggestions,"  or  "future  excava- 
tions." 

I  see  more  and  more  that  earnest  spiritual  inquir- 


194  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

ers  should  not  approach  the  Bible  from  the  stand- 
point of  experts.  Men,  regarded  in  the  bulk,  are 
not  scholars  and  specialists.  The  reading  of  the 
Bible  might  in  many  cases  be  regulated  as  other 
reading  is  regulated.  It  might  be  useful  to  tell  some 
people  exactly  where  to  begin.  It  may  be  that  the 
historical  books  of  the  Bible  should  not  be  read  until 
the  very  last.  Why  not  begin  with  the  Parables  and 
the  Beatitudes,  and  work  backward?  Enter  the 
Bible  by  the  Christ-gate.  In  this  way  we  could  in  a 
sense  reconstruct  the  canon  without  alarming  con- 
servative instincts.  Let  the  Bible  be  put  back  again 
into  its  several  parts,  and  let  those  parts  be  given 
out  according  to  the  age  and  circumstances  of  the 
reader.  Give  out  the  Parables  as  a  first  lesson  ;  then 
the  Christ  Stories ;  then  the  history  of  the  Crucifix- 
ion ;  then  a  selection  of  the  Psalms ;  then  some  of 
the  principal  biographies.  This  would  not  only  save 
many  premature  inquiries,  it  might  prepare  the  mind 
to  consider  critical  points  and  difficulties  in  a  right 
spirit.  It  would  certainly  put  these  points  in  their 
proper  place.  It  is  undoubtedly  difficult  for  some 
minds,  inexperienced  and  untrained,  to  confront  at 
once  the  problem  of  Creation,   the   history   of  the 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS.  195 

Fall,  and  the  intricacies  of  ancient  and  superseded 
ritual.  There  is  no  spiritual  need  to  begin  there. 
The  infinite  beauty  of  the  gospel  is  that  a  beginning 
can  be  made  at  any  point.  Why  not  begin  at  the 
point  nearest  Jesus?  What  if  the  original  text  was 
meant  to  be  read  not  only  from  right  to  left,  but 
from  last  to  first  ?  What  if  the  Origins  should  be  an 
answer,  not  a  puzzle?  In  some  such  way  as  this, 
always  variable,  I  have  come  into  the  possession  of 
my  own  steadfast  faith  in  the  Bible.  I  did  not  come 
into  it  by  comparing  Chaldean  and  Hebrew  Cosmog- 
ony, or  reading  the  clay  tablets  of  Nineveh,  or  set- 
tling the  parentage  of  Jotham,  or  adjusting  the  dis- 
crepancies as  to  the  period  between  the  birth  of 
Arphacsad  and  the  migration  of  Abram.  These  are 
questions  for  experts.  They  are  to  some  minds 
deeply  interesting  questions.  But  I  did  not  find 
them  necessary  to  salvation.  It  is  quite  supposable 
that  a  man  conscience-stricken  on  account  of  sin  and 
directed  to  the  Bible  for  guidance  would  impatiently 
put  such  questions  aside,  and  almost  instinctively 
find  out  the  portions  which  bear  immediately  upon 
his  own  necessity.  "There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him  under- 


ig6  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

standing."  My  belief  in  the  Divine  Sovereignty 
enables  me  to  recognize  guidance  even  in  the  selec- 
tion of  passages  of  Scripture.  I  see  also  the  possibil- 
ity of  a  man  so  finding  Christ,  and  so  accepting  the 
precious  gospel  of  his  love,  that  he  would  find  no 
difficulty  in  describing  the  book  to  which  he  owed 
all  his  saving  knowledge  as  none  other  than  the 
Word  of  God.  The  title  would  seem  to  suit  the 
contents.  He  would  think  of  those  parts  of  the 
Book  which  gave  him  life  and  light  and  pardon  and 
hope.  He  would  rest  hard  by  the  cross.  He  would 
make  his  soul  glad  with  the  words  of  Jesus.  And  if 
in  the  end  he  called  the  Book  none  other  than  the 
Word  of  God,  I  think  he  might  be  understood  and 
forgiven. 


VIII. 

AD    CLERUM. 

[As  this  book  views  the  subject  of  Biblical  Criticism  almost  wholly 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  preacher,  it  has  occurred  to  me  that  a  few 
observations  bearing  upon  Pastoral  Theology  might  be  useful.  Inci- 
dental light  may  thus  be  thrown  upon  practical  points.  The  Christian 
preacher  is  largely  dependent  upon  the  Bible.  Without  it  what  mes- 
sage has  he?  what  unique  authority?  what  standard  of  appeal?  By 
approaching  the  Bible  from  the  standpoint  of  the  preacher's  actual 
service  we  may  see  how  pastoral  Experience  may  become  a  critic  and 
an  annotator.] 

ARE    you    very   much    disheartened    just    now? 
_/\_  Are  there  no  friendly  faces  shining  upon  you  ? 
Come,    then,    let    us    talk    to-     Discouragements 
gether,    and  let    me    be    your  and 

elder  brother.    I  have  been  just 

as  much  cast  down  as  you  can  possibly  be,  yet  I  have 
lived  to  sing  in  the  warm  light  and  take  the  gift  of 
peace  from  the  right  hand  of  Christ.  The  Saviour 
clearly  saw  that  his  servants  would  often  be  in  trouble. 
So  he  laid  up  for  them  a  rich  store  of  comfort,  one  of 

197 


198  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  very  first  comforts  being  the  lesson  that  is  to  be 
drawn  from  his  own  experience.  The  servant  is  to 
be  as  his  Lord.  If  the  Master  of  the  house  has  been 
called  Beelzebub,  how  can  they  who  are  of  his  house- 
hold escape  vituperation?  Did  not  the  people  take 
up  stones  to  stone  him?  Did  he  not  go  to  places 
that  refused  to  receive  him  ?  Had  the  Son  of  Man 
where  to  lay  his  head?  By  thinking  these  things 
over  I  have  often  received  great  comfort.  My  sor- 
rows are  nothing  to  Christ's.  He  was  despised  and 
rejected  of  men.  "  He  was  a  reproach  of  men  and 
despised  of  the  people."  The  people  sneered  at  his 
ancestry ;  they  questioned  his  credentials,  saying, 
"  Search  and  look,  for  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no 
prophet;  "  they  said  he  had  an  unclean  spirit;  "he 
came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not." 
Now,  where  are  your  little  troubles?  Some  man 
has  left  your  ministry  in  a  resentful  spirit;  well, 
what  of  it?  He  will  show  his  true  colors  some  day, 
and  the  mystery  will  be  made  plain.  Do  your  duty  ; 
do  not  be  affected  by  his  evil  spirit ;  show  by  your 
forbearance  what  the  grace  of  God  has  done  for  you, 
and  then  forget  the  injury  and  go  on  steadily  with 
your  work.      Do  not  allow  yourself  to  think  of  re- 


AD   CLERUM.  1 99 

sentment.  "  Resist  the  devil  and  he  will  flee  from 
you."  Your  enemy,  or  his  children,  will  one  day 
come  to  your  door  to  beg.  "  If  thine  enemy  hunger, 
feed  him;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink."  By  making 
a  right  use  of  the  Bible,  in  such  experiences,  you 
will  find,  as  I  have  found,  how  wonderfully  it  proves 
itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  It  knows  me  alto- 
gether. It  knows  exactly  what  I  want.  When  my 
sorrow  is  supreme,  it  says,  "  Is  there  no  balm  in 
Gilead?     Is  there  no  Physician  there?" 

"  But  people  are  so  ungrateful,"  ypu  re- 
mind me. 

Yes ;  some  of  them  are.  But  are  not  some 
of  them  grateful  ?  I  am  always  struck  with 
the  kindness  of  people,  their  love,  their  sym- 
pathy, their  patience. 

"  True ;  but  the  people  I  have  done  most 
for  are  most  ungrateful." 

Very  likely.  That  has  been  sadly  illus- 
trated in  my  own  experience.  But  even  on 
that  point  the  Bible  gives  the  best  comfort. 
It  would  seem,  as  in  the  Apostle's  case,  the 
more  you  love  some  people  the  less  you  will 
be  loved. 


200  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

How  wonderfully  the  Bible  meets  this  very  case. 
"  Hear,  O  heavens,  and  give  ear,  O  earth ;  for  the 
Lord  hath  spoken,  I  have  nourished  and  brought  up 
children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me."  Now 
will  you  think  your  case  over  from  this  point  of 
view?  If  you  will,  I  am  sure  you  will  take  heart 
and  begin  again.  Do  not  give  up  your  work. 
Write  your  letter  of  resignation,  and  write  it  very 
strongly  and  even  vehemently,  and  then  place  it 
most  carefully  in  the  middle  of  the  fire,  the  devil's 
post-office  for  the  devil's  letters.  Why  should  a 
faithful  man  be  faithless?  You  were  not  called  to 
the  ministry  by  the  will  of  man,  but  by  the  will  of 
God.  "  In  all  thy  ways  acknowledge  him,  and  he 
will  direct  thy  paths."  A  minister  must  have  no 
self?  He  must  be  his  Lord's  loving  slave.  In  such 
a  case  his  chain  is  his  liberty.  What  have  you  or 
I  suffered  in  comparison  with  the  Apostle  Paul? 
When  I  think  myself  ill-treated  or  wronged  in  any 
way  I  read  Paul's  record,  and  become  ashamed  of 
my  petulance : 

"  Are  they  ministers  of  Christ? 
I  am  more ;  in  labors  more  abun- 
dant, in  stripes  above  measure,  in 
prisons   more  frequent,    in  deaths 


AD   CLERUM.  201 

oft.  Of  the  Jews  five  times  re- 
ceived I  forty  stripes  save  one. 
Thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,  once 
was  I  stoned,  thrice  I  suffered  ship- 
wreck, a  night  and  a  day  I  have 
been  in  the  deep;  in  journeyings 
often,  in  perils  of  waters,  in  perils 
of  robbers,  in  perils  by  mine  own 
countrymen,  in  perils  by  the 
heathen,  in  perils  in  the  city,  in 
perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  perils  in 
the  sea,  in  perils  among  false  breth- 
ren; in  weariness  and  pain  fulness, 
*in  hunger  and  thirst,  in  fastings 
often,  in  cold  and  nakedness." 

Yet  we  are  tempted  to  resign  because  some  man  has 
given  up  a  pew!  I  am  ashamed  of  myself  when  I 
think  of  this  possibility.  What  did  the  Apostle  do 
with  all  his  sorrows,  disappointments,  sufferings,  and 
infirmities?  He  turned  them  to  good  account.  He 
made  capital  out  of  them.  Oh,  listen  to  this  hero- 
martyr  : 

"  I  take  pleasure  in  infirmities, 
in  reproaches,  in  necessities,  in  per- 
secutions, in  distresses  for  Christ's 
sake:  for  when  I  am  weak,  then 
am  I  strong." 

If  we  are  in  the  apostolic  succession  we  will  do  the 
same.      "  If  I  needs  must  glory,  I  will  glory  in  the 


202  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

things  which  concern  mine  infirmities."  Paul  thus 
made  failures  into  successes.  They  brought  him 
nearer  to  his  Lord.  They  helped  him  toward 
Gethsemane.  "  He  said  unto  me,  My  grace  is  suffi- 
cient for  thee :  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in 
weakness."  Our  weakness  gives  Christ  an  oppor- 
tunity to  show  the  power  of  his  grace.  He  does  not 
always  save  us  from  trouble ;  he  always  saves  us  in 
it.  "  We  are  troubled  on  every  side,  yet  not  dis- 
tressed; we  are  perplexed,  but  not  in  despair;  per- 
secuted, but  not  forsaken;  cast  down,  but  not  de- 
stroyed." That  we  are  "  not  destroyed"  is  a  proof 
that  we  shall  be  saved.  With  the  Lord,  a  negative 
may  mean  a  positive.  Are  you  destroyed  ?  Is  your 
root  consumed  with  fire?  Is  there  no  remnant  of 
strength?  Let  us  look  to  our  Lord  and  expect  his 
incoming  to  our  hearts  every  moment.  "  Though 
he  was  crucified  through  weakness,  yet  he  liveth  by 
the  power  of  God."  "If  we  be  dead  with  him,  we 
shall  also  live  with  him :  if  we  suffer,  we  shall  also 
reign  with  him."  Now  read  the  twenty- third 
Psalm,  and  tell  me  if  it  is  not  the  Word  of  God  ut- 
tered from  the  human  side. 


AD   CLERUM.  203 

You  know  that  the  value  of  all  comfort  depends 
upon  the  right  with  which  we  can  claim  it.  It  is 
not  meet  to  take  the  children's  Self-Examination 
bread  and  cast  it  unto  the  dogs.  Personal. 

We  must  not  be  comforted  in  wrong-doing.  "  What 
glory  is  it,  if,  when  ye  be  buffeted  for  your  faults, 
ye  shall  take  it  patiently?  "  I  must,  then,  probe  my 
heart  before  God.  I  must  not  spare  myself.  The  hot 
iron  must  go  right  in.  Have  I  been  envious  of  some 
other  man?  Have  I  sought  to  injure  his  reputation, 
or  to  modify  his  influence?  Have  I  been  secretly 
pleased  when  I  have  heard  that  he  is  not  quite  so 
popular  as  he  used  to  be  ?  And  yet  have  I  said  how 
sorry  I  was  that  he  was  not  maintaining  his  position  ? 
What  wonder  if  God  should  chide  me,  and  feed  me 
with  the  bread  of  rebuke?  My  soul  was  indeed 
mean,  and  my  breath  was  corrupt  in  prayer,  yea,  my 
holiest  words  were  bathed  in  pestilence,  and  my  sup- 
plications were  weighted  with  deceit.  Is  it  to  be 
wondered  at,  then,  that  God  stirred  up  men  against 
me,  and  rolled  rough  stones  before  my  feet?  It  was 
righteous  judgment.  I  had  shut  the  door  of  the 
sanctuary  in  my  own  face,  and  excluded  myself  from 


204  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  light  of  love.  Or,  if  I  have  not  sinned  in  this 
particular  way,  have  I  not  sinned  after  a  manner  of 
my  own?  Have  I  not  burned  with  unholy  passion? 
Have  I  no  secret  altar  of  illicit  worship?  Has  cov- 
etousness  perverted  love,  and  seduced  motive  from 
its  first  simplicity?  Have  I  not  become  entangled 
in  an  unprofitable  process  of  self-justification  without 
going  to  the  root  of  the  matter?  It  is  along  this  line 
of  inquiry  that  I  often  find  the  probable  reason  of 
my  discouragements  and  depressions.  Other  people 
may  have  been  the  visible  instruments,  but  the  hos- 
tility which  they  expressed  may  have  been  divine. 
Very  rarely  does  chastisement  of  this  sort  begin  and 
end  with  a  personal  opponent.  The  opponent  him- 
self may  not  fully  know  what  he  is  doing.  He  may 
even  do  it  without  reluctance.  It  does  the  soul  no 
harm  to  see  God  himself  in  all  this  penal  action ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  brings  the  soul  to  great  principles 
and  gives  it  an  opportunity  of  penitence  and  confes- 
sion. Never  spare  your  own  soul,  or  regard  yourself 
as  an  instance  of  injured  innocence.  Self-severity  is 
the  way  to  health.  At  this  point  also  I  have  proved 
the  Bible  to  be  the  very  Word  of  God.  There  is  no 
severity  like  the  severity  of  that  Word.     "  The  word 


AD   CLERUM.  2 05 

of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any 
two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing 
asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and  mar- 
row, and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of 
the  heart"  (Heb.  iv.  12).  This  may  or  may  not 
technically  be  the  Bible  as  a  mere  book,  yet  it  is  in 
that  book  I  find  the  dividing  sword  as  I  find  it  no- 
where else.  When  the  Lord  says,  "  Is  not  my  word 
like  as  a  fire?  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the 
rock  in  pieces?  "  my  heart  can  only  answer  in  a  sol- 
emn and  grateful  Yes.  A  favorite  figure  is  that  of 
the  sword; 

"  He  hath  made  my  mouth  like 
a  sharp  sword." — Isaiah  xlix.  2. 

"  Out  of  his  mouth  went  a  sharp 
two-edged  sword." — Rev.  i.  16. 

"  Repent,  or  I  will  come  unto 
thee  quickly,  and  will  fight  against 
them  with  the  sword  of  my  mouth." 
— Rev.  ii.  16. 

We  may  know  the  Word  of  God  by  its  severity  as 
well  as  by  its  gentleness.  It  is  a  savor  of  life  unto 
life,  or  of  death  unto  death.  It  effectually  worketh 
in  them  that  believe.  The  Word  of  the  Lord  is  as 
the  Lord  himself.      "Hell  and  destruction  are  before 


206  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

him ;  how  much  more,  then,  the  hearts  of  the  children 
of  men."  Are  we  very  much  cast  down  and  exceed- 
ingly troubled ?  "I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try 
the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to  his 
ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings  "  (Jer. 
xvii.  10).  That  maybe  the  explanation!  It  finds 
the  reason  in  myself,  and  therefore  it  is  likely  to  be 
true.  I  must  no  longer  trifle  with  myself.  "  If  I 
say,  Surely  the  darkness  shall  cover  me;  even  the 
night  shall  be  light  about  me."  What,  then,  shall  I 
do?  Wherewithal  shall  I  cleanse  my  way?  I  will 
arise,  and  go  unto  my  Father,  and  will  say  unto  him, 
"  Search  me,  and  know  my  heart ;  try  me,  and  know 
my  thoughts ;  and  see  if  there  be  any  wicked  way  in 
me,  and  lead  me  in  the  way  everlasting."  Along 
this  line  you  will  find  release,  and  hope,  and  heaven. 

Why  do  I  preach?  This  is  not  so  simple  an 
inquiry  as  it  seems  to  be.  Have  I  really  a  message 
Self=Examination    to  the  people,  and  is  it  so  urgent 

Ministerial.  that  I  must  deliver  it  or  die? 
Whose  message  is  it?  Is  it  mine  or  God's?  Is  it 
not  partly  mine  ?  Say  the  setting  of  it  in  words,  and 
in  choosing  the  words  have  I  not  given  the  prefer- 


AD   CLERUM.  207 

ence  to  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth  ?  Have 
I  not  been  betrayed  by  my  own  cleverness  and  sor- 
didly delighted  with  my  own  originality  ?  But  I  have 
been  told  that  I  can  have  as  direct  a  message  from 
God  as  Jeremiah  had,  or  the  Apostle  Paul.  Is  that  a 
fact?  Yes  and  No.  God  does  now  certainly  com- 
municate with  the  men  who  are  "  called  to  be  saints," 
but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  other  men  whom  he  has 
chosen,  and  not  at  regularly  appointed  canonical 
hours.  You  have  to  preach  in  the  morning  and  in 
the  evening  and  in  mid-week,  and  to  do  this  for  ten 
years,  or  twenty,  or  fifty.  Never  forget  that  there 
is  an  "  everlasting  gospel "  as  well  as  an  immediate 
message — a  central  fund  of  truth,  public  and  per- 
manent, as  well  as  the  word  just  dropped  from 
heaven.  How  could  human  vanity  be  more  flatter- 
ingly besieged  than  by  the  temptation  that  God 
speaks  privately  and  even  secretly  to  the  one  man, 
and  that  the  one  man  is  to  be  listened  to  as  the 
oracle  of  heaven?  I  believe  that  even  the  one  man 
is  only  really  strong  as  he  speaks  the  common  truth, 
under  the  common  inspiration.  We  must  beware 
of  "  another  gospel,  which  is  not  another,"  and  we 
must  be  so  deeply  attached  to  the  common  truth  as 


208  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

to  understand  the  apostolic  exhortation :  "  Though 
we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gos- 
pel unto  you  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto 
you,  let  him  be  accursed."  Paul  would  not  allow 
any  preacher,  even  himself,  to  substitute  one  gospel 
for  another.  He  was  so  emphatic  upon  this  point 
that  he  repeated  it:  "As  we  said  before,  so  say  I 
now  again,  If  any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto 
you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed." 
But  was  not  Paul  inspired?  Yes.  Yet  he  did  not 
claim  what  we  call  originality.  He  was  inspired  to 
"receive"  and  to  "deliver"  a  great  public  trust  of 
the  Church :  "  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all 
that  which  I  also  received" — and  was  it  something 
that  he  himself,  and  he  alone,  received  as  a  personal 
and  direct  message  in  answer  to  his  own  individual 
prayer?  He  gives  the  contrary  impression  by  going 
constantly  to  "  the  Scriptures "  for  his  facts  and 
arguments.  The  doctrine  which  Paul  "  received " 
and  "delivered"  he  states  to  be: — -Christ  died: 
Christ  was  buried :  Christ  rose  again :  Christ  was 
seen :  Christ  was  seen  by  me.  All  this  is  set  out  in 
the  fifthteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.     That  is  the  doctrine  which  I  have  to 


AD   CLE  RUM.  20g 

receive  and  deliver.  These  are  the  unchanging  facts. 
Personal  inspiration  may  come  and  go,  but  the 
sacred  deposit  abides.  There  is  a  standard  truth — an 
"  everlasting  gospel."  God  will  surely  visit  his  ser- 
vants and  reform  their  faith  and  grant  them  larger 
understanding,  but  he  will  not  change  the  foundation 
— the  sure  corner-stone — nor  destroy  the  election  of 
his  Son. 

Am  I  preaching  faithfully  ?  Am  I  afraid  of  men's 
faces?  Do  I  take  my  income  and  my  worldly  posi- 
tion into  account?  Is  my  example  like  a  holy  fire 
in  the  Church,  or  am  I  chilled  by  the  indifference  of 
others?  I  must  stretch  my  very  soul  upon  the  rack 
of  these  inquiries  if  I  would  fight  the  enemy  in  the 
power  of  God.  My  humiliation  will  then  be  turned 
into  true  glory.  I  shall  not  be  dependent  for  my 
comfort  or  peace  upon  popular  applause.  With  that 
applause  I  shall  have  no  concern.  Not  what  is  pop- 
ular but  what  is  right  must  be  my  incessant  and 
fearless  inquiry.  "Jesus,  still  lead  on."  O  my 
Father,  help  me  in  all  my  vows;  nay,  do  Thou  Thy- 
self firs^t  form  the  vows  within  my  heart,  then  nurture 
them  with  Thy  grace,  and  help  me  to  turn  them  into 


2IO  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

life  that  they  may  be  of  use  to  others  also.  May  I 
preach  the  everlasting  gospel  under  the  gracious  in- 
spiration of  the  immediate  moment,  that  it  may  come 
with  great  power  and  tenderness  to  hearts  that  are 
confident  in  the  coming  of  Thy  kingdom.  Father, 
make  me  a  vessel  meet  for  Thine  own  use. 

The  Apostle  Paul  has  laid  down  the  subjects  of  his 
ministry,  and  I  do  not  see  why  I  should  change  them. 
Preaching  on  the  right    They    are    great    subjects. 
subjects.  They  are  at  once  historical 

and  prophetical.  Let  me  slowly  repeat  them  :  Christ 
died :  Christ  was  buried :  Christ  rose  again :  Christ 
was  seen :  Christ  was  seen  of  me.  This  is  the  true 
modernness.  The  element  of  personal  experience 
and  testimony  is  essential  to  true  preaching.  No 
matter  who  else  has  seen  Christ,  if  I  have  not  seen 
him  myself  I  cannot  preach  him.  A  spectacle  to  the 
eyes  of  my  body  he  may  never  be,  yet  he  may  be 
the  daily  vision  of  my  soul.  We  are  told  that  Paul 
did  not  preach  on  gloomy  things,  but  upon  "  Jesus 
and  the  resurrection."  But  what  does  resurrection 
imply?  Resurrection  is  the  last  word  of  a  series. 
Born,   Died,  Buried,  Rose — that    is   the  series,   and 


AD   CLERUM.  2  I  I 

every  point  glows  with  eternal  meaning.  I  must 
preach  Jesus  and  the  Birth,  Jesus  and  the  Death, 
Jesus  and  the  Burial,  if  I  would  intelligently  and 
powerfully  preach  Jesus  and  the  Resurrection. 
Death  by  itself  is  a  poor  theme,  but  death  regarded 
in  the  light  of  the  Resurrection  becomes  a  servant  of 
the  Lord,  and  to  die  may  be  to  partake  as  of  a  holy 
sacrament.  Death  is  now  no  more  death.  It  is  not 
the  old  servitude  to  law.  It  is  obedience,  vivified 
by  hope.  It  is  necessity,  with  consent.  I  must, 
then,  follow  the  Apostle's  commanding  example  and 
preach  on  great  subjects.  They  will  lift  the  ministry 
to  its  right  level.  They  will  bring  in  that  element 
of  majesty  which  does  not  consist  in  pomp  of  words 
or  gorgeousness  of  metaphor,  but  in  a  solemn  and 
subduing  consciousness  of  the  Supernatural,  as  if  God 
filled  the  air  and  placed  his  almightiness  at  our  dis- 
posal. We  shall  know  the  nearness  of  God  by  the 
obliteration  of  ourselves ;  by  our  sense  of  unworthi- 
ness ;  by  our  eagerness  to  bless  others;  by  our  ha- 
tred of  sin.  The  tests  are  many  and  perfect.  The 
very  greatness  of  his  themes  will  drive  a  minister  to 
prayer.  Let  him  discourse  upon  some  small  theme, 
and  he  feels  that  he  can  handle  it  without  help.     Let 


212  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

him  face  Eternity,  and  he  will  clese  his  eyes  in  hum- 
ble supplication!  Woe  to  the  minister  who  thinks 
he  can  handle  all  themes  with  ease,  and  woe  to  the 
church  whose  minister  he  is!  Woe,  also,  to  the 
minister  who  thinks  that  the  Cross  is  an  old  theme 
and  that  everything  possible  has  been  said  about  it. 
That  is  a  fatal  error.  The  Cross  is  the  oldest  and  the 
newest  of  themes.  They  who  know  it  best  see  in  it 
a  new  glory  every  day.  "  God  forbid  that  I  should 
glory  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
"To  me  to  live  is  Christ."  "The  life  which  I  now 
live  in  the  flesh  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me."  Still  the 
"me,"  always  the  "me,"  necessarily  the  "me  also." 
"  I  live,  yet  not  I." 

Is  it  at  all  short  of  criminal  for  any  man  to  preach 
doctrines  which  affect  the  very  foundations  of  char- 
Preaching   founded    a°ter  and  the  remotest  issues  of 

on  Authority.  human  life  without  being  able 
to  test  their  truth  except  by  his  own  supposed  in- 
spiration? Who  is  the  preacher?  Who  sent  him? 
Who  gave  him  his  word?  Every  other  teacher  has 
a  basis.     Every  other  teacher  has  his  book  of  evi- 


AD   CLERUM.  2  I  3 

dences.  Why  should  the  preacher  alone  have  a 
license  bearing  no  signature  but  his  own?  Every 
other  teacher  has  a  book  not  of  his  own  writing. 
What  is  the  sky  but  a  book?  What  is  the  earth  but 
a  book?  What  is  unwritten  daily  life  but  a  book? 
How  foolish,  then,  it  is  to  speak  of  Christianity  as  a 
book-religion.  Science  is  a  book-science.  The  only 
superstition  that  has  no  book  is  Agnosticism,  and  it 
has  no  book  because  it  has  no  science  and  no  relig- 
ion. Agnosticism  is  a  cipher  shutting  out  every- 
thing and  inclosing  nothing.  It  is  an  impertinence 
hardly  less  than  profane  for  a  man  to  base  his 
preaching  upon  nothing  but  his  own  variable  and 
capricious  inspiration.  Even  bibliolatry  may  be 
preferable  to  self-deification.  The  authority  of  the 
Christian  preacher  is  the  Inspired  Word.  His  min- 
istry is  founded  upon  a  revelation.  His  sermon  is 
modern:  his  gospel  is  everlasting;  his  illustrations 
are  a  thousand :  his  Message  is  one.  As  a  minister 
I  must  found  myself  upon  the  Bible.  What  it  is  to 
others  I  know  not;  to  me  it  is  the  abiding  and  un- 
changeable Word  of  God.  Revelation  is  at  once  the 
guarantee  and  the  test  of  true  inspiration.  "  Try  tin- 
spirits  whether  they  are  of  God."     "Of  your  own 


214  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things,  to 
draw  away  disciples  after  them."  To  every  Timothy 
I  would  affectionately  say :  "  I  charge  thee  before 
God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Preach  the  Word." 
"  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of 
God."  These  oracles  are  declared  by  the  apostles 
to  be  "  the  word  of  this  salvation  "  (Acts  xiii.  26), 
"the  word  of  faith"  (Rom.  x.  8),  "the  word  of 
life  "  (Phil.  ii.  16),  "  the  engrafted  word  which  is  able 
to  save  your  souls"  (James  i.  21).  If  any  man  ask 
Christian  ministers  to  produce  their  authority,  let 
them  gratefully  and  exultantly  reply :  "  God  .  .  . 
hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation  " 
(2  Cor.  v.  19). 

We  cannot  preach  unless  we  pray.  We  can  talk ; 
we  can  say  good  things;  we  can  be  popular;  but 
Preaching  the  other   in  the  dear  Lord's  sense  of  the 

side  of  Prayer.  term  we  cannot  preach.  The 
Apostle  calls  upon  us  to  "  pray  without  ^easing," 
and  this  exhortation  has  been  designated  an  "  apos- 
tolic hyberbole."  I  solemnly  deny  it.  We  breathe 
without  ceasing,  we  love  without  ceasing,  we  believe 
without  ceasing,  why  is  it  hyperbolical  to  pray  with- 


AD   CLERUM.  2  I  5 

out  ceasing?  Why  will  we  find  figures  of  speech 
where  we  might  find  the  very  breath  of  heaven  ? 
Christianity  is  nothing  if  it  is  not  hyperbolical,  from 
a  worldly  and  carnal  point  of  view.  Nothing  in  it 
is  on  a  low  level.  Nothing  is  ordinary.  It  is  the 
religion  of  the  Incarnation — that  hyperbole  of  love ! 
We  cannot  always  be  upon  our  knees,  but  attitude  is 
not  prayer.  We  cannot  always  be  uttering  formal 
or  verbal  petitions,  but  "  prayer  is  the  upward  glanc- 
ing of  an  eye  when  none  but  God  is  near."  The 
grammarian  cannot  explain  "pray  without  ceasing," 
but  the  child-heart  knows  it  well  and  knows  it  all. 
Is  it  hyperbole  to  say  "  we  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being  in  God"?  To  accept  that  being  in  the 
right  spirit  is  to  "pray  without  ceasing."  Prayer 
may  be  a  look,  a  sigh,  a  tear,  an  expectation  without 
words  and  beyond  them.  In  the  soul's  highest 
moods,  when  the  soul  is  nearest  heaven,  we  eat  the 
Lord's  flesh  and  drink  the  Lord's  blood,  without 
heeding  the  sneer  and  the  quibble  of  unbelief.  And 
so  we  pray.  And  so  we  read  the  Bible  and  lovingly 
call  it  the  Word  of  God.  We  may  be  challenged  to 
say  where  it  calls  itself  the  Word  of  God,  but  we 
should  be  unjust  to  our  inspired  and  ardent  love  if 


2l6  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

we  called  it  by  any  inferior  name.  It  has  told  us  all 
we  know  about  God  and  Jesus,  and  Sin  and  Pardon 
and  Prayer,  so  we  call  it  the  Word  of  God.  It  tells 
me  that  I  may  pray.  It  says  God  hears  and  answers 
prayer.  It  invites  me  to  draw  nigh  unto  God.  In 
its  very  midst  there  is  a  Throne  of  Grace.  I  must 
keep  close  company  with  my  Lord.  I  must  not  lose 
sight  of  him  for  one  moment.  He  must  be  so  near 
me  that  we  can  talk  in  whispers.  Without  him  I 
can  do  nothing.  With  him  I  can  do  all  things. 
"  Lord,  abide  with  me,  for  it  is  toward  evening  and 
the  day  is  far  spent." 

Will  prayer  supersede  labor?  Never.  To  labor 
is  to  pray.  Prayer  may  rearrange  labor,  may  give 
new  scope  and  new  direction  to  labor,  may  charge 
our  aptitudes  with  new  responsibilities,  may  operate 
in  many  ways,  but  will  never  sanction  or  prosper  in- 
dolence. I  will  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  a  minister 
may  be  withdrawn  in  a  large  degree  from  literary 
attention  to  artistic  sermon-making.  He  may  have 
been  a  manufacturer  of  idols.  Herein  God  may 
"stain  the  pride  of  his  glory."  He  may  have  to 
think  more  of  the  truth  and  less  of  the  form ;  more 


AD   CLERUM.  2  I  7 

of  the  Master  and  less  of  his  own  petty  reputation. 
It  may  be  the  most  painful  of  all  fates  to  be  merely 
a  popular  preacher.  At  this  point  prayer  will  work 
its  silent  miracles,  in  mellowing  thought,  in  deepen- 
ing tenderness,  in  enlarging  charity.  O  brothers,  let 
us  pray  without  ceasing,  that  we  may  work  without 
fainting.  "  They  that  wait  upon  the  Lord  shall 
renew  their  strength."  "The  Lord  is  good  unto 
them  that  wait  for  him,  to  the  soul  that  seeketh 
him."  In  prayer  we  are  alone  with  God.  We  are 
in  his  treasure-house  receiving  the  costliest  of  his 
riches.  "  The  God  of  Israel  is  he  that  giveth 
strength  and  power  unto  his  people."  It  is  as  if  he 
would  give  us  his  almightiness.  "  He  giveth  power 
unto  the  faint ;  and  to  them  that  have  no  might 
he  increaseth  strength."  Incomplete  power  despises 
weakness :  perfect  power  nurses  it  into  force.  There 
is  One  who  will  not  break  the  bruised  reed,  nor 
quench  the  smoking  flax.  We  must  get  near  him 
in  prayer.  "The  Lord  will  give  strength  unto  his 
people,"  "  for  which  cause  we  faint  not;  but  though 
our  outward  man  perish,  yet  the  inward  man  is  re- 
newed day  by  day."  I  will  boldly  go  to  my  Father's 
throne,  and  tell  him  every  day  what  Jesus  did  tor 


2l8  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

me.  He  will  not  say  No  to  Jesus,  "  for  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things,  to  whom  be 
glory  forever." 

The  ministry  of  Christ  is  not  a  "  learned  profes- 
sion "  in  any  monastic  sense  which  separates  it  offi- 
Words  and  Things    c'm^Y  from  the  life  of  the  corn- 
not  Necessary  to      mon  people,  or  in  the  sense  of 

Salvation.  ,  uu    ,  , 

having   a   crabbed    terminology 

of  its  own  without  which  no  man  can  hold  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Unhappily,  the  ministry 
of  the  gospel  has  been  made  scholastic.  Men  who 
enter  it  must  know  a  little  Latin  and  a  little  arith- 
metic. Latin  and  arithmetic  no  man  of  sense  will 
undervalue.  They  may  be  extremely  useful  in  any 
walk  of  life.  But  they  have  no  necessary  relation 
whatever  to  the  ministry.  To  the  ministry  men  are 
called  directly  from  Heaven.  The  true  minister  is  a 
miracle  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  on  the  Holy  Ghost 
he  must  rely  for  daily  inspiration.  Modern  ways  of 
training  ministers  inexpressibly  sadden  me.  Some- 
times I  feel  as  if  they  must  grieve  the  very  Spirit  of 
God.  There  are  many  things  really  not  necessary 
to  the  ministry.      Even  a  final  year  in  Germany  is 


AD   CLERUM.  219 

not  absolutely  indispensable.  I  am  not  now  speak- 
ing of  scholars,  but  of  ministers,  preachers,  pastors, 
who  have  to  mingle  with  the  common  life  of  the 
people.  Scholars  we  must  have.  I  am  now  speak- 
ing from  a  purely  pastoral  point  of  view,  and  I  say 
that  pastors  must  not  be  priestlings,  and  certainly 
must  not  be  sciolists  and  pedants.  They  must  hum- 
ble themselves  to  the  acceptance  of  the  fact  that  a 
great  many  beautiful  things  can  be  said  even  in  the 
English  language ;  even  some  fairly  original  things 
may  be  expressed  by  that  instrument.  It  is  really 
a  very  fair  language,  and  men  should  take  pains  to 
spell  it  well  before  they  sneer  at  it.  I  have  some- 
times thought  of  making  a  list  of  words  not  necessary 
to  salvation  and  of  hanging  it  up  in  the  pulpit.  The 
list  would  contain  such  words  as : 

Absolute,  Relative,  Hy- 
pothesis, Phenomena,  Ag- 
nostic, Positivist,  Synop- 
tic,the  Johannine  problem, 
Assurbanipal,  the  Septua- 
gint,  Psychology,  Assyri- 
ology,  Orthophonic,  Tar- 
gum,  and  I  [egelianism. 


220  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

I  have  no  personal  prejudice  against  any  of  these 
words — indeed,  some  of  them  look  as  if  they  might 
mean  a  good  deal — yet  I  do  not  think  they  are  neces- 
sary to  salvation.  I  think  the  Church  could  do  very 
well  without  some  of  them.  The  sort  of  preaching 
which  I  describe  as  the  Gospel-made-difficult  never 
did  me  any  good.  Nor  did  I  ever  wish  to  speak  to 
the  preacher.  He  always  seemed  to  be  preaching 
out  of  a  cloud  into  a  cloud,  and  to  be  writhing  with 
intellectual  and  verbal  pain.  I  have  avoided  the 
portentous  creature,  and  have  sincerely  wished  that 
he  would  at  once  take  a  final  year  in  Germany.  The 
style  that  I  like  is  the  style  of  the  Beatitudes,  and 
the  style  of  the  Parables.  Jesus  finds  my  heart. 
Jesus  feeds  me.  Jesus  gives  me  rest.  "  The  com- 
mon people  heard  him  gladly."  Dear  Saviour,  help 
me  to  preach  in  Thy  way  and  to  tell  sorrowing  men 
how  they  may  find  Thee.  I  am  most  anxious  to  be 
infinitely  removed  from  the  idea  of  being  a  member 
of  a  mere  profession.  If  this  ministry  is  a  profession, 
it  is  a  wicked  fraud,  with  Simon  Magus  as  its  type 
and  head.  An  expert  I  can  understand,  and  I  can 
assign  him  large  functions ;  but  the  half-bred  scholar 
who  appoints  himself  as  an  oracle  is  a  stumbling- 


AD    CLERUM.  22  1 

block,  an  uncertificated  priestling,  a  pretender,  and 
a  sham.  A  great  process  of  unfrocking  must  go  on 
in  every  ministry.  This  will  separate  the  true  from 
the  untrue,  and  invest  the  true  with  their  rightful 
influence.  The  priest,  regarded  as  the  type  of  cer- 
tain traditions  and  pretenses,  must  be  got  rid  of. 
He  profits  by  ignorance  and  grows  rich  by  supersti- 
tion. He  sells  heaven  for  a  livelihood,  and  makes 
an  investment  of  Calvary.  The  humiliation  of  listen- 
ing to  such  an  embodied  falsehood  is  intense  and 
intolerable.  On  the  other  hand,  how  noble  a  picture 
is  that  of  a  good  minister  of  Jesus  Christ!  He  is  a 
sincere,  simple-minded,  unpretending,  sympathetic 
soul ;  he  longs  to  do  good ;  he  hides  himself  behind 
his  Lord ;  for  him  to  live  is  Christ.  The  world  will 
always  want  such  ministers,  and  the  Head  of  the 
Church  will  never  cease  to  supply  them.  They  will 
not  necessarily  be  literary  experts ;  but  they  will  be 
rich  in  that  varied  and  well-tested  experience  which 
has  tried  the  quality  of  faith  in  the  stress  and  sorrow 
of  life.  The  bigness  of  the  man  will  explain  the 
dignity  of  the  minister.  The  ministry  calls  for  large 
and  generous  natures.  I  am  well  aware  that  igno- 
rance may  pervert  my  meaning,  and  that,  being  des- 


222  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

titute  of  every  qualification,  it  may  claim  the  mantle 
of  inspiration.  There  is,  however,  no  serious  cause 
for  alarm.  Ignorance  can  have  but  a  short  day. 
Where  there  is  no  deepness  of  earth  the  process  of 
withering  cannot  be  long  put  off.  Never  trust  a 
man  simply  because  he  knows  nothing.  It  is  a  poor 
ground  of  trust.  To  blatant  fluency  truth  owes 
nothing.  Even  where  reading  does  not  add  to  my 
wisdom,  it  humbles  me  by  revealing  my  ignorance. 
To  know  my  ignorance  may  be  the  beginning  of  true 
knowledge.  So,  then,  I  would  be  saved  from  the 
little-learning,  which  is  the  worst  ignorance,  and  from 
the  no-learning,  which  makes  self-confidence  so  pos- 
sible. I  must  go  to  God  in  loving  prayer,  and  put 
myself  wholly  into  his  hands.  I  would  bathe  myself 
in  God.  O  God,  hear  my  crying,  and  turn  Thyself 
toward  me  in  great  compassion. 

Mr.  Ruskin  says  that  Political  Economy  is  citizen's 
economy.  That  is  definition  by  etymology,  which 
is  often  the  best  definition  of  all.  Pastoral  theology 
is  shepherdly  theology.  Shepherd  is  as  hard  to  de- 
fine as  Father.  We  all  know  the  meaning,  yet  we 
can  never  tell  it  all.  Care  is  so  watchful,  gentleness 
is  so  patient,  love  is  so  unselfish,  that  we  cannot  eas- 


AD   CLERUM.  223 

Ily  follow  their  whole  way  and  set  down  in  plain 
words  exactly  and  completely  what  they  are  doing. 
Love  is  always  coming  back,  like  Abrarri,  to  the  altar 
which  it  "  built  at  the  first."  Gentleness  always 
adds  one  more  soothing  touch,  and  anxiety  has  al- 
ways one  more  "  good- night  "  before  weariness  drops 
asleep.  The  shepherd,  or  pastor,  is  not  necessarily 
a  literar\-  expert,  yet  he  is  an  expert  in  his  own  way. 
Mothers  must  not  be  clumsy,  nor  shepherds,  nor 
nurses,  nor  the  hand  that  stirs  the  fire  in  the  hushed 
chamber  of  suffering.  There  are  fine  arts  that  have 
no  name.  The  angels  train  us  to  their  use.  The 
Spirit  guides  the  chosen  craftsman  and  holds  the 
hand  that  draws  and  cuts  and  molds  the  finest  lines. 
We  should  do  nothing  for  ourselves,  but  quietly  and 
intently  await  the  coming  of  the  angel. 

THE   PASTOR    SHOULD   KEEP    HIS   PEOPLE   AROUND 

HIS   DESK 

whilst  composing  his  discourse.  The  audience  will 
be  imagined,  not  imaginary.     Thus  every  sentence 

will  be  addressed  to  some  known  experience,  and 
thus  the  hearers  will  know  that  the  pastor  lives  in 
their  midst.     The  wise  pastor  is  under  no  delusion  as 


224  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

to  the  capacity  and  qualifications  of  his  audience. 
He  knows  that  most  of  his  auditors  are  in  absolute 
ignorance  of  his  subject,  and  therefore  he  takes 
nothing  for  granted.  Even  greatness  has  its  own 
fine  way  of  being  elementary.  Greatness  never 
snubs  the  congregation,  for  that  would  mean  exas- 
peration on  the  one  side  and  loss  of  influence  on  the 
other.  Yet  greatness  can  stoop  to  the  lowest  and 
wait  for  the  slowest.  The  pastor  knows  that  most 
of  his  people  are  wholly  unprepared  for  continuous 
and  elaborate  argument.  They  have  just  left  a 
thousand  worries :  the  child  is  ill ;  the  field  is  bare ; 
there  is  no  blossom  on  the  fig-tree ;  there  is  no  herd 
in  the  stall :  the  mind,  therefore,  must  be  humored 
and  lured  into  the  subject  with  pious  and  tender  tact. 
The  minister  makes  a  fatal  mistake  who  supposes 
that  his  congregation  is  composed  of  intellectual  and 
highly  cultivated  hearers.  A  few  such  there  may 
be,  and  where  the  description  is  really  true  they  will 
be  the  strongest  supporters  of  any  pastorate  bent 
upon  carrying  forward  the  common  life  of  the  church. 
True  culture  is  generous  and  patient.  Probably  the 
most  prominent  characteristic  of  any  miscellaneous 
audience  is  ignorance.     If  a  minister  could  question 


AD  CLERUM.  22$ 

his  hearers  one  by  one  as  to  their  knowledge  of  the 
Bible,  he  would  be  simply  horrified.  Ask  them 
about  the  scheme  of  any  Epistle,  its  characteristics, 
its  purpose,  its  supreme  thought,  then  he  will  know- 
exactly  on  what  a  cultured  audience  he  is  lavishing 
his  genius.  The  most  discouraging  feature  of  the 
case  is  that  people  are  under  the  delusion  that  what- 
ever else  they  may  be  ignorant  of,  they  certainly  do 
know  the  Bible.  Not  a  man  in  a  million  knows  any- 
thing about  the  Bible  beyond  a  few  of  its  most  famil- 
iar chapters  and  texts.  I  venture  to  think  that  when 
the  Bible  is  really  known,  in  its  unity,  its  purpose, 
its  spirit,  men  will  have  little  difficulty  in  calling  it 
the  W  ord  of  God.  In  the  meantime  they  must  be 
largely  regarded  as  not  knowing  it.  This  fact  creates 
the  opportunity  for  a  wise  handling  of  the  Word. 
How  to  be  guileful  without  deceit  ?  How  to  rem< 
ignorance  without  first  insulting  it?  The  pastor 
must  study  these  inquiries  in  the  light  of  facts.  He 
must  often  work  obliquely.  By  explaining  a  word 
or  an  argument  to  the  young,  and  asking  grown 
people  to  be  patient  with  him  in  doing  so,  he  may 
now  and  then  get  a  beam  of  light  partially  into 
heads — if  heads  they  are — which  are  the  very  sepul- 


226  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

chers  of  darkness.  But  specially  and  lovingly  must 
the  pastor  remember  that  the  majority  of  his  hearers 
do  not  live  in  a  library.  They  have  not  been  trained 
to  follow  a  linked  argument.  Why,  then,  should  the 
pastor  pose  before  them  as  the  descendant  of  an 
Aristotle  who  would  be  the  first  to  disown  and  de- 
spise him?  Rather  let  him  "  serve  the  Lord  with  all 
humility  of  mind,  and  with  many  tears."  This  bap- 
tism of  tears  is  no  mean  sign  of  power.  They  are 
the  tears  of  a  strong  man.  "  Out  of  much  affliction 
and  anguish  of  heart,  I  wrote  unto  you  with  many 
tears  "  (2  Cor.  ii.  4).  "  He  beheld  the  city  and  wept 
over  it"  (Luke  xix.  41).  Man  is  not  made  up  of 
intellect  exclusively.  Nor  by  intellect  alone  can  man 
be  saved. 

THE   PASTOR    MUST   LIVE   FOR    HIS   CHARGE 

by  identifying  himself  with  the  spiritual  education 
of  his  people.  They  are  his  people.  Upon  one  fold 
he  spends  his  care  and  love,  as  the  father  spends  his 
heart  upon  one  home.  He  must  not  be  "  a  stranger  " 
to  his  own  sheep,  or  they  will  not  know  his  voice. 
The  standard  of  the  true  pastor  is  Christ.  "  I  am 
the  good  shepherd ;  the  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life 


.-//)   CLERUM. 

for  the  sheep."  In  our  own  way  and  in  our  own 
degree  we  are  to  be  what  Christ  was.  That  is  our 
high  calling!  That  is  our  cross.  "  Christ  also  hath 
loved  us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering 
and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet- smelling  savor  " 
(Eph.  v.  2).  Resentment  is  forbidden  to  the  true 
pastor.  He  cannot  act  as  a  fellow-citizen  or  an 
equal.  The  pastor  has  often  to  be  quiet  when  the 
natural  man  would  be  haughty  and  repellent.  In  a 
sense  the  pastor  must  be  Christ.  "  Let  nothing  be 
done  through  strife  or  vain-glory ;  but  in  lowliness 
of  mind  let  each  esteem  others  better  than  them- 
selves." The  apostles  are  pastoral  examples.  "  Being 
reviled,  we  bless;  being  persecuted,  we  suffer  it." 
This  is  argument!  This  is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit ! 
The  pastor  is  not  yet  fully  ordained  in  whose  heart 
there  linger-  one  trace  of  social  contempt.  u  Conde- 
scend to  men  of  low  estate."  "  Have  not  the  faith 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  respect  of  persons." 
Resentment,  or  vanity,  or  self-justification  lias  no 
commendation  in  the  Bible.  "Say  not  thou,  I  will 
recompense  evil;  but  wait  on  the  Lord,  and  he  shall 
save  thee."  Acting  in  this  spirit,  the  pastor  will  win 
the  hearts  of  his  people  and  prevail  silently  against 


228  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  proud  doer.  Violence  makes  but  temporary- 
success.  "  He  that  is  slow  to  anger  is  better  than 
the  mighty  ;  and  he  that  ruleth  his  spirit  than  he  that 
taketh  a  city."  Aggressive  and  boisterous  policies 
are  for  the  carnal  man ;  gentleness  is  the  power  of 
the  pastor.  "  To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that  I 
might  gain  the  weak."     Filled  with  this  spirit, 

THE    PASTOR    WILL   NEVER    DEPRECIATE    HIS 
CHARGE. 

Wherever  his  lot  is  cast,  the  pastor  will  conscien- 
tiously and  gratefully  make  the  most  and  the  best  of 
his  people.  He  will  never  set  himself  above  them 
in  any  spirit  of  vanity,  playing  the  worldly  "  gentle- 
man "  that  he  may  throw  their  manners  into  humili- 
ating contrast.  The  people  will  feel  his  superiority 
without  having  it  thrust  upon  them.  They  will 
smell  the  rose  without  being  pierced  by  the  thorn. 
In  the  whole  course  of  my  ministry  I  have  never 
failed  to  observe  that  the  pastors  who  appreciate 
their  people  are  the  pastors  who  do  the  most  endur- 
ing work.  Besides,  if  the  pastor  were  a  real  gentle- 
man, owing  nothing  to  pretense  and  nothing  to 
veneer,  he  would  know  that,  however  much  the  peo- 


AD  CLERUM.  22g 

pie  are  inferior  to  him,  they  once  had  sense  enough 
to  elect  him,  and  he  once  was  glad  enough  to  accept 
their  favOrs.  But  such  a  gentleman  never  breaks 
down  in  his  manners.  He  is  filled  with  the  Spirit, 
and  is  therefore  appreciative,  approachable,  and  of  a 
tender  heart.  Let  me  lovingly  warn  my  brethren 
against  the  too  frequent  practice  of  depreciating  their 
people.  Take  Christ's  view  of  them.  "Why  dost 
thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother?"  In  the  pulpit  the 
minister  addresses  his  audience  as  "  my  Christian 
brethren  " — "  my  dear  friends  " — "  my  beloved  hear- 
ers." He  who  calls  his  people  by  one  name  in  public 
and  by  another  in  private  brings  himself  under  the 
charge  of  insincerity  and  practical  falsehood.  The 
ruder  the  people  the  larger  the  pastor's  opportunity 
for  refining  them.  If  the  people  are  too  rude  to  be 
mixed  with,  why  live  upon  them?  Why  not  take  up 
some  genteeler  misery?  They  who  gathered  around 
the  Saviour  were  not  members  of  the  social  aristoc- 
racy. The  Apostle  Paul  worked  with  his  own  hands 
that  he  might  relieve  the  poorer  churches  from  the 
charge  of  his  sustenance.  "  Ye  remember,  brethren, 
our  labor  and  travail:  for  laboring  night  ami  day, 
because   we   would    not   be   chargeable    unto    any    of 


230  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

you,  we  preached  unto  you  the  gospel  Of  God." 
There  is  a  gentility  that  can  work  with  its  own  hands 
when  need  arises.  The  pastor  will  never  fail  to  look 
beyond  the  circumstances  and  fix  his  thought  upon 
the  man.  He  is  a  shepherd  of  souls,  not  of  gold 
rings  and  soft  raiment.  "  Not  many  wise  men  after 
the  flesh  are  called."  The  men  whose  "  mouth 
speaketh  great  swelling  words,  having  men's  persons 
in  admiration  because  of  advantage,"  are  condemned 
by  Jude  as  men  who  "  walk  after  their  own  lusts." 
The  pastor  will  have  his  personal  friends  and  his 
elect  companions,  but  in  his  pastoral  capacity  he  will 
be  "  kindly  affectioned  "  toward  the  whole  church. 
"  I  charge  thee  before  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  elect  angels,  that  thou  observe  these 
things  without  preferring  one  before  another,  doing 
nothing  by  partiality."  The  pastor  has  a  special 
message  to  the  rich  as  well  as  to  the  poor,  and  it 
is  the  more  delicate  message  to  deliver.  "  Charge 
them  that  are  rich  in  this  world,  that  they  be  not 
high-minded,  nor  trust  in  uncertain  riches."  Charge 
them  "  that  they  do  good,  that  they  be  rich  in  good 
works,  ready  to  distribute,  willing  to  communicate." 
In  this  way  will  the  godly  pastor  bring  into  sympa- 


AD   CLERUM.  23  I 

thy  and  fellowship  many  who  are  divided  by  the 
worldly  distinctions  of  title  and  estate. 

THE  PASTOR  SHOULD  KNOW  HUMAN  NATURE, 

for  that  is  the  truly  "original  language."  No  mat- 
ter what  else  you  know,  if  you  do  not  know  human 
nature  you  are  not  fit  to  teach  and  guide  human  life. 
Man  is  odd.  Each  man  is  a  man  by  himself,  a  sep- 
arate study,  an  independent  puzzle.  Do  not  be 
misled  by  mere  manners.  I  tremble  when  I  am 
introduced  to  "  a  nice  man,"  "  such  a  nice  man  "  ;  "  a 
quiet  man,"  "  such  a  quiet  man."  You  never  know 
what  a  man  is  until  you  have  interfered  with  his 
vested  interests,  or  until  you  have  seen  him  under 
insult.  Then  will  you  know  how  very  nice  a  man 
he  is,  how  extremely  quiet,  how  absolutely  modest. 
I  have  had  to  do  with  "  nice  men  "  until  I  dread  the 
very  term. 

"There's  a  deal  o'  solid  kicking 
In  the  meekest-looking  mule." 

So  says  James  Russell  Lowell,  and  so  will  every 
pastor  say  who  has  had  to  do  with  "  very  nice  men." 
Jesus  Christ  knew  human  nature,  and  acted  with 
discretion  that  was  meant  to  be  exemplary.      "  Jesus 


2  $2  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

did  not  commit  himself  unto  them,  because  he  knew 
all  men,  and  needed  not  that  he  should  testify  of 
man:  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man."  He  did  not 
treat  Nicodemus  as  he  treated  Herod.  The  pastor 
will  need  discrimination  in  distributing  spiritual  in- 
struction and  comfort.  Sometimes  he  will  be  mis- 
cellaneous; sometimes  personal  and  direct.  "I, 
brethren,  could  not  speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual, 
but  as  unto  carnal,  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ." 
Even  the  disobedient  must  not  be  treated  as  hostile. 
"  Count  him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a 
brother."  Beware  of  false  professors.  "Take  heed 
that  no  man  deceive  you."  Pastors  should  not  live 
for  flattery.  They  will  never  be  really  happy  until 
they  live  primarily  for  the  favor  of  God.  To  the  in- 
quiring pastor  I  would  say  :  Form  your  own  estimate 
of  men.  Keep  your  counsel  to  yourself.  Never 
listen  to  gossip ;  never  descend  to  tittle-tattle.  Give 
your  people  to  feel  that  your  mind  is  set  upon  great 
subjects  and  the  application  of  such  subjects  to  daily 
experience,  and  they  will  soon  feel  that  you  are  dis- 
inclined to  indulge  in  local  slander  or  frivolous  criti- 
cism. The  holy  man  will  bring  unholy  subjects  into 
disrepute.     If  you   know   human   nature  well,  you 


AD  CLERUM.  233 

will  let  some  men  talk  themselves  right  out.  You 
need  not  listen.  But  you  might  look  at  them  in  a 
way  that  they  could  hardly  mistake  for  an  encour- 
agement. 

THE  PASTOR  SHOULD  KEEP  A  GOOD  CONSCIENCE. 

This  will  be  his  stronghold  in  the  day  of  trouble. 
It  has  been  the  defense  of  good  men  in  all  time.  To 
my  junior  I  would  say,  Let  no  man  do  you  such 
favors  as  would  pervert  your  judgment  or  quell  your 
courage.  Borrow  from  none.  Avoid  debt  as  you 
would  avoid  a  wolf.  Never  forget  that  a  pound 
a  week  is  not  three  shillings  a  day.  Keep  your 
tastes  within  your  income.  How  nobly  Samuel  ad- 
dressed the  people : 

"Behold,  here  I  am:  witness 
against  me  before  the  Lord,  and 
before  his  anointed :  whose  ox 
have  I  taken  ?  or  whom  have  I  de- 
frauded? whom  have  I  oppressed? 
or  of  whose  hand  have  I  received 
any  bribe  to  blind  mine  eyes  there- 
with? And  I  will  restore  it  you" 
(1  Sam.  xii.  3). 

That  is  independence.  There  should  be  nothing 
shady  in  a  pastor's  relations  with  his  people.  The 
pastor's  motto  should  be  Straightforwardness.     The 


234  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Apostle  Paul  had  a  noble  record.  "  I  have  coveted 
no  man's  silver,  or  gold,  or  apparel.  ...  In  all  things 
I  have  kept  myself  from  being  burdensome  unto 
you,  and  so  will  I  keep  myself."  An  infinite  shame 
to  modern  churches  if  the  pastor  should  be  neglected, 
yet  the  pastor's  own  honor  need  not  be  tarnished. 
"  Yea,  ye  yourselves  know,  that  these  hands  have 
ministered  unto  my  necessities,  and  to  them  that 
were  with  me."  A  horrible  shame  to  the  churches! 
To  whom  is  the  pastor,  in  many  cases,  least  indebted 
for  support?  To  the  rich.  Always  allowing  for 
brilliant  exceptions,  the  rich  men  in  a  church  are  the 
robbers  of  pastors.  They  rob  them  in  the  very  act 
of  patronizing  them.  They  tempt  them  into  need- 
less expense.  The  richest  man  I  ever  knew  gave 
me  seven  and  sixpence  per  quarter  for  his  seat,  and 
every  time  I  submitted  to  the  humiliation  of  dining 
with  him  my  traveling  expenses  were  in  excess  of 
that  amount!  Yet  with  what  glory  he  covered  my 
ministry!  Surely  the  time  will  come  when  spiritual 
things  will  be  rightly  valued.  "  If  we  have  sown 
unto  you  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great  thing  if  we 
shall  reap  your  carnal  things?"  Is  flesh  to  be  bal- 
anced against  thought  ?  "  Who  goeth  a  warfare  any 
time  at  his  own  charges?  who  planteth  a  vineyard, 


AD  CLERUM.  235 

and  eateth  not  of  the  fruit  thereof?  or  who  feedeth  a 
flock,  and  eateth  not  of  the  milk  of  the  flock?" 
These  are  lessons  for  the  churches.  The  less  the 
pastor  thinks  of  them  the  more  should  they  be 
thought  of  by  the  people.  Let  the  pastor  so  order 
his  conduct  in  all  such  matters  as  to  have  a  con- 
science void  of  offense.  Along  this  line  many  high 
rewards  are  to  be  gathered.  "  Our  rejoicing  is  this, 
the  testimony  of  our  conscience."  A  solid — a  sac- 
ramental feast!  A  banquet  with  the  Lord  himself! 
Hear  the  Apostle :  "  I  have  lived  in  all  good  con- 
science before  God  until  this  day."  "And  herein  I 
do  exercise  myself,  to  have  always  a  conscience  void 
of  offense  toward  God,  and  toward  men."  It  was  in 
this  bank  of  conscience  that  the  Apostle  laid  up  large 
wealth.  "  I  thank  God,  whom  I  serve  from  my  fore- 
fathers with  a  pure  conscience."  According  to  the 
testimony  of  his  conscience  every  pastor  is  strong  or 
weak.  The  conscience  is  the  man.  Never  have  an 
artificial  conscience,  or  a  one-sided  conscience,  or  an 
oblique  conscience.  If  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be 
darkness,  how  great  is  that  darkness! 

And  in  what  will  all  faithful  shepherdliness  end? 
Suppose  a  pastor  has  fed  the  flock  of  God,  taking 


236  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

the  oversight  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  will- 
ingly: not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind. 
What  then?  Will  he  die  the  death  of  a  dog  and  be 
buried  as  an  unclean  thing?  Suppose  the  pastor  has 
been  blameless  as  the  steward  of  God  and  an  en- 
sample  to  the  flock?  Suppose  he  has  been  an  ex- 
ample of  the  believers,  in  word,  in  conversation,  in 
charity,  in  spirit,  in  faith,  in  purity?  What  then? 
Shall  he  pass  away  as  smoke  and  be  forgotten  as  a 
wind?  It  is  not  so  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of  the 
end.  His  words  glow  with  thankfulness;  his  spirit 
is  immovable  in  confidence : 

"When  the  Chief  Shepherd  shall  appear 
ye  shall  receive  a  crown  of  glory  that 
fadeth  not  away." 

"  Even  so,  Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly." 


EPILOGUE. 


237 


IX. 

EPILOGUE. 

IF  the  Bible  had  not  survived  so  many  examina- 
tions, assaults,  and  afflictions,  one  might  despair 
of  its  happy  issue  out  of  present-day  inquiry  and 
so-called  dissection.  What  we  want,  however,  and 
what  we  must  have  at  all  costs,  is  the  truth.  In 
pursuing  this  end  Christian  scholars  must  be  prayer- 
fully and  generously  supported.  We  may  have  to 
build  other  churches  and  other  colleges,  because  as 
honest  men  we  cannot  accept  a  livelihood  by  betray- 
ing a  trust ;  yet  I  believe  we  shall  account  the  sacri- 
fice a  joy  if  by  making  it  we  can  get  nearer  to  reality 
and  fact.  If  the  discussion  turned  upon  some  par- 
ticular doctrine  contained  in  the  Bible  itself,  a  doc- 
trine known  to  be  open  to  various  interpretations,  the 
ground  would  be  very  significantly  limited.  But  in 
this  case  the  question  turns  upon  the  genuineness 

239 


2\Q  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

and  credibility  of  the  Bible  itself,  and  I,  for  one,  am 
sorry  that  our  scholars  and  experts  do  not  feel  them- 
selves at  liberty  to  speak  more  definitely  upon  that 
vital  subject.  Theirs  is  largely  a  non-committal  at- 
titude upon  nearly  all  the  points  of  expert  opinion. 
They  offer  us  "a.  series  of  tentative  suggestions," 
they  refer  us  to  "  a  true  historical  instinct,"  they  are 
not  able  to  say  this  or  that  "  at  present,"  they  give 
"  legitimate  weight "  to  the  results  or  possibilities  of 
"  future  excavations,"  and  they  assure  us  that  all  is 
right  as  to  spiritual  revelation.  Adam,  as  he  has 
been  popularly  apprehended,  was  removed  from  the 
Bible  long  ago  by  the  naturalists ;  there  is  no  Adam ; 
there  never  was  any  Adam ;  there  never  could  have 
been  any  Adam; — the  account  of  the  Creation  is  a 
Poem,  but  who  wrote  it  no  man  knows;  Adam  could 
not  have  written  it,  for  there  never  was  an  Adam ;  — 
Mr.  Horton  ("  Revelation  and  the  Bible,"  p.  39)  says 
that  it  would  be  a  "childish  misinterpretation"  to 
treat  the  first  known  story  in  Genesis  "  as  literal 
act" — the  serpent  never  talked,  the  Flood  never 
fell ; — Abraham  was  ideal  and  cumulative,  a  noun 
of  multitude,  rather  than  a  real  and  historical  person- 
ality;— we  are  getting  accustomed  to  hear  without 


EPILOGUE.  241 

special  emotion  that  "  Ruth,  Daniel,  and  Esther  rest 
upon  a  very  slender  historical  basis  "  ; — Moses  did 
not  write  the  Pentateuch,  David  did  not  write  the 
Psalms,  Solomon  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Proverbs; — "the  authors  of  the  books  which  com- 
pose the  Bible  did  not  dream  of  making  the  claim 
that  what  they  were  writing  was  written  by  God,  or 
spoken  by  God"  ("  Verbum  Dei,"  p.  105); — yet  in 
spite  of  all  this  we  are  assured  that  on  all  spiritual 
matters  the  Bible  may  be  trusted.  Surely  this  is 
imposing  a  severe  strain  upon  the  mind  of  any  one 
but  an  expert.  But  we  must  not  consider  that. 
What  we  want  to  get  at  is  fact,  rise,  or  fall  what 
may.  The  front  gates  are  fired  down,  the  castle 
guns  have  been  silenced,  the  moat  has  been  crossed, 
the  roof  has  been  battered  in,  but  the  household 
hearth  still  remains!  Does  it?  How  long  will  it 
remain?  All  along  the  critical  line  orthodoxy  has 
had  to  give  in.  Even  "poor  Tom  Paine"  is  now 
seen  to  have  been  something  of  a  hero  and  a  pion- 
eer, and  in  fact  almost  a  martyr.  All  this  may  be 
right,  or  it  may  all  be  wrong;  what  I  fear  is  that 
where  criticism  has  so  completely  beaten  back  ortho- 
doxy it  may  one  day  drive  in  the  battle  upon  Cal- 


242  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

vary  itself  and  seize  the  cross  as  a  trophy  of  war. 
It  is  easy  to  deprecate  this  view,  and  easy  to  pity 
it  as  sentiment,  yet  I  cannot  sufficiently  ignore  the 
antecedent  facts  to  treat  it  with  disregard.  If  ninety- 
nine  of  a  hundred  points  have  been  carried,  I  cannot 
feel  quite  secure  about  the  hundredth.  But  some 
of  the  men  who  have  made  the  bulk  of  these  conces- 
sions are  Christian  men?  Truly.  They  are,  too, 
men  who  do  more  for  mankind  than  it  lies  within 
my  inferior  capacity  to  do.  I  know  that  I  am  not 
dealing  with  aliens  and  enemies.  That  is  my  su- 
preme difficulty.  I  feel  that  if  such  men  are  right, 
I  must  be  wrong.  I  was  preaching  in  some  blunder- 
ing way  before  they  were  born,  but  they  come  up 
with  all  the  new  learning,  and  they  take  away,  or 
permit  to  be  taken  away,  Adam  and  Abraham,  and 
David  and  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  in  the  sense  in  which 
I  have  always  cherished  these  illustrious  names. 
They  drive  Christ  out  of  the  Messianic  Psalms  and 
prophecies.  They  tell  me  that  the  Bible  is  wrong  in 
history,  wrong  in  chronology,  wrong  in  dates,  wrong 
in  sequence,  and  that  (Horton,  "  Revelation  and  the 
Bible,"  p.  13)  "  as  a  treatise  on  ethics,  or  a  Vade 
Mecum  of  practical  conduct,  the  book  does  not  pro- 


EPILOGUE.  243 

fess  to  serve."  But  they  assure  me  that  the  whole 
purpose  of  the  book  is  to  bring  men  to  Christ. 
Whose  Christ?  Baur's?  Strauss'?  Renan's?  Pres- 
ently may  they  take  away  my  Lord  himself  without 
telling  me  where  they  have  laid  him? 

In  substance  I  retain  the  Bible  exactly  as  my 
mother  gave  it,  for  she,  too,  was  an  expert.  She 
thought  the  Lord  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
in  six  days,  and  that  he  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
and  blessed  it.  She  told  me  the  story  of  Joseph  just 
as  if  it  had  been  all  true,  and  she  told  me  about 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  the  angel  seizing  the  up- 
lifted knife  as  if  it  were  a  fact.  And  about  the  Flood 
she  told  me,  and  never  for  a  moment  doubted  the 
great  rain,  but  was  quite  sure  that  the  flood  was 
'forty  days  upon  the  earth,  and  that  the  waters  pre- 
vailed upon  the  earth,  and  that  all  the  high  hills  that 
were  under  the  whole  heavens  were  covered.  She 
went  over  all  the  Bible  lovingly,  and  never  said  a 
word  to  me  about  "  tentative  suggestions,"  clay  tab- 
lets, and  "future  excavations."  And  many  a  time 
after  reading  the  Bible  to  me  we  fell  on  our  knees, 
and  the  dear  old  soul  talked  to  God  as  if  he  were  a 


244  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

real  living  being  and  quite  close  to  her.  Yet  she 
knew  nothing  about  God  but  what  she  had  read  in 
the  Bible !  Of  course  all  this  cuts  a  mean  figure  in 
the  eyes  of  formal  logic  and  in  the  view  of  the  new 
learning.  Yet  I  am  going  to  cling  to  it.  My  reason 
for  referring  to  it  now  is  to  remind  the  critics  that 
there  is  a  Bible  dear  to  the  common  people — they 
were  made  by  it,  converted  by  it,  comforted  by  it, 
and  they  live  upon  it,  and  I  do  not  want  the  critics 
to  take  it  away  until  they  have  something  better  to 
give  than  "  a  series  of  tentative  suggestions  "  and  the 
hope  of  finding  some  help  in  "future  excavations." 
We  must  not  ignore  the  work  which  the  Bible  has 
done  amongst  the  people.  Experts  should  limit  the 
circulation  of  their  books  amongst  themselves.  They 
should  prey  and  feed  and  starve  upon  each  other's 
partial  learning,  and  flatter  each  other's  critical  in- 
stinct by  inventing  still  longer  polysyllables  and 
playing  the  middleman  to  German  wordmongers. 
I  would  only  take  away  an  idolater's  idol  because  I 
think  I  have  something  better  to  put  in  its  place. 
Neither  would  I  take  away  the  Mother's  Adam  and 
Moses  and  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Isaiah  and  Dan- 
iel, and  fill  the  ghastly  vacancy  with  (f  nothing  more 


EPILOGUE.  245 

than  a  series  of  tentative  suggestions."  But  what 
would  the  infidel  say  ?  I  never  consult  the  infidel 
upon  anything.  I  go  to  the  infidel  for  infidelity ;  I 
never  go  to  him  for  faith.  What,  then,  is  to  be 
done  ?  Go  on  with  the  old  until  the  new  is  ready. 
Do  not  let  the  soul  shiver  in  nakedness  whilst  the. 
new  tailors  are  wrangling  over  the  texture  and  pat- 
tern of  the  new  clothes.  What  about  the  suggestion 
that  the  Bible  is  the  composition  and  the  imposture 
of  the  monks  of  the  twelfth  century  ?  It  is  the  most 
self-stultifying  theory  ever  dreamed  by  insanity,  if 
only  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  book  in  the  world 
of  which  the  monks  are  so  much  afraid  as  the  Bible, 
and  no  book  which  they  have  so  strenuously  endeav- 
ored to  keep  out  of  the  hands  of  the  people.  If  they 
invented  it,  they  were  so  God-forsaken  as  to  invent 
an  engine  for  their  own  destruction.  No  layman  can 
harbor  both  the  Bible  and  the  monk.  Then  what  of 
the  rationalistic  theory  which  picks  and  chooses,  and 
blows  away  the  ghostly  or  supernatural  element? 
A  most  inadequate  and  a  most  irrational  theory. 
Rationalism  offends  nothing  so  much  as  reason. 
Every  man  who  knows  himself  knows  that  there  is  a 
point  at  which  reason  must  terminate  its  explanations 


246  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

and  solutions,  and  be  dissatisfied  by  a  half-illumined 
universe,  or  rise  into  imagination,  or  find  light  and 
rest  in  faith.  The  only  right  which  any  man  has  to 
be  a  rationalist  is  the  right  which  he  has  to  starve 
himself — and  has  any  man  the  right  of  self-starva- 
tion? I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  difference 
between  Unitarian  and  orthodox  conceptions  should 
not  be  so  faint  as  hardly  to  be  distinguishable ;  nor 
should  a  teacher's  evangelicalism  depend  upon  an 
occasional  sentence  here  and  there :  the  distinction 
should  be  vital,  glaring,  palpable,  eternal.  I,  there- 
fore, utterly  repudiate  the  so-called  rationalistic  con- 
ception of  Inspiration.  What,  then,  is  my  personal 
standpoint,  my  individual  and  peace-bringing  faith  ? 
I  will  try  to  make  it  clear. 

At  the  outset  I  feel  sure  that  the  Bible  was  writ- 
ten, edited,  put  together,  and  otherwise  made  into  a 
book  by  somebody.  The  sun  and  moon  may  have 
made  themselves,  or  may  be  due  to  anonymous 
origin,  but  it  is  certain  that  some  man  or  men  wrote 
the  Bible,  and  some  other  man  or  men  printed  it, 
published  it,  and  brought  it  within  our  reach.  It  is 
something  to  know  beyond  doubt  that  the  Bible  had 


EPILOGUE.  247 

a  personal  origin.  But  it  might  have  a  personal 
origin  and  be  a  bad  book.  Exactly.  But  we  know 
that  it  is  not  a  bad  book.  Even  some  schools  of 
rationalism  admit  that  the  book  has  moral  merits. 
Certainly  it  is  a  most  religious  book.  Its  key-word, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  GOD.  That  must  be  most 
clearly  recognized.  When  creation  is  accounted  for, 
where  is  God  put?  In  the  very  first  sentence. 
When  man  is  accounted  for,  where  is  God  put  ?  In 
the  very  first  sentence.  When  the  Law  is  given, 
where  is  God  put?  In  the  very  first  sentence. 
When  the  prophets  were  called,  where  is  God  put? 
In  the  very  first  sentence.  When  Jesus  began  to 
preach,  where  was  God  put?  In  the  very  first  sen- 
tence. When  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  to 
whom  was  he  about  to  ascend  ?  To  "  my  God  and 
my  Father."  When  Jesus  shall  end  his  mediation, 
who  shall  reign?  "  God  shall  be  all  in  all."  When 
Jesus  shall  come  again,  how  will  he  come?  "With 
the  trump  of  God."  From  whom  is  the  new  Jeru- 
salem to  descend?  "  I  John  saw  the  new  Jerusalem 
coming  down  from  God."  Before  whom  did  the 
four-and-twenty  elders  fall  down  in  heaven?  They 
fell  down  and  worshiped  God  that  sat  on  the  throne. 


248  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Who  promised  the  seed  of  the  woman  ?  God.  Who 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son?  God.  Who  shall  destroy  the  last  trace  of 
sorrow?  "  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears."  So  rolls 
the  thunder-music.  God!  God!  God!  I  simply 
note  the  fact,  and  I  especially  note  it  because  it  is 
one  of  those  facts  which  do  not  terminate  in  them- 
selves. Whenever  God  comes,  he  comes  with  thou- 
sands of  angels  and  chariots  innumerable.  When 
God  comes,  Creation  came,  and  Providence,  and  Re- 
demption. Finding  as  I  do  so  much  implied  by  the 
introduction  of  the  divine  Name — implied,  I  say,  not 
expressed  or  claimed  in  any  formal  way  as  in  a  legal 
document — I  at  once,  and  necessarily,  think  of  the 
book  in  vital  connection  with  that  all-including  Name. 
In  a  very  clear  and  intelligible  sense,  the  Name  is  to 
me  the  book,  and  the  book  is  the  Name.  I  hardly 
so  much  as  see  the  human  names:  they  are  the 
names  of  clerks,  scribes,  secretaries,  or  amanuenses; 
I  am  interested  in  them  only  in  a  very  secondary 
and  remote  way.  Why  ?  Because  the  other  Name 
fills  all  the  space  and  becomes  the  focal  point  of  all 
attention.  It  would  not  surprise  me  if  the  writers 
themselves  were  to  tell  me  that  they  were  very  slow 


EPILOGUE.  249 

and  laborious  penmen,  and  that  often  they  did  not 
know  what  they  were  writing.  The  prophecy  may 
have  been  greater  than  the  prophet.  Jeremiah  him- 
self, not  the  least  of  the  prophets,  may  have  shrunk 
into  a  child  when  the  heavenly  charge  sought  to 
enter  into  his  soul,  and  Moses  never  really  knew  how 
much  he  hesitated  and  stammered  until  God  called 
him  to  service.  Then  the  hesitancy  was  felt.  These 
high  elections  magnify  our  estimate  of  personal  in- 
firmity. We  chaffer  on  equal  terms  with  Eliphaz, 
Bildad,  and  Zophar,  but  when  the  Voice  out  of  the 
whirlwind  thrills  us,  we  abhor  ourselves  in  dust  and 
ashes.  It  is  that  Voice  which  I  hear  most  distinctly 
in  the  Bible.  That  Voice  is  indeed  the  Bible. 
Without  that  Voice  there  would  be  no  Bible.  I 
therefore  call  the  Bible  the  Word  of  God,  and  if  I 
called  it  by  any  other  name  I  should  be  as  one  who 
was  busy  here  and  there  and  who  let  the  King  pass 
by.  It  is  more  than  possible  to  think  too  much 
about  the  scribes  and  the  amanuenses,  and  to  think 
too  little  about  what  is  actually  written.  We  have 
turned  the  amanuenses  into  authors  and  loaded  them 
unjustly  with  responsibility.  Sometimes  we  should 
pity  them.      Surely   it  was   not  easy  to   bear   "  the 


250  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

burden "  of  the  Lord.  I  thank  the  men  through 
whom  the  message  came,  but  I  must  not  forget  that 
my  business  is  with  the  message  itself.  If  I  were  to 
offer  homage  to  the  angel  who  brings  me  "  the  say- 
ings of  the  prophecy,"  he  would  say,  "  See  thou  do 
it  not ;  for  I  am  thy  fellow-servant  and  of  thy  breth- 
ren the  prophets,  and  of  them  which  keep  the  sayings 
of  this  book:  worship  God."  If,  when  I  read  the 
wonderful  words  of  Peter,  I  were  to  fall  down  at  his 
feet  and  worship  him,  he  would  take  me  up  and  say, 
"  Stand  up;  I  myself  also  am  a  man."  If  I  were  to 
think  only  or  largely  of  Moses  and  Ezra  and  Isaiah, 
this  same  Peter  would  rebuke  me,  saying,  "  The 
prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man, 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  And  the  prophets  themselves 
would  rebuke  our  criticism  and  our  admiration,  say- 
ing, "  Why  marvel  ye  at  this  ?  or  why  look  ye  so 
earnestly  on  us,  as  though  by  our  own  power  or  holi- 
ness we  had  brought  you  this  message?"  They 
would  refer  us  to  the  true  Source :  "  Not  that  we  are 
sufficient  of  ourselves  to  think  anything  as  of  our- 
selves;  but  our  sufficiency  is  of  God."     In  the  New 


EPILOGUE.  251 

Testament  as  well  as  the  Old  the  reference  is  always 
to  God: 

"  We  are  laborers  together  with 
God  .  .  .  written  not  with  ink  but 
with  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God. 
.  .  .  These  things  saith  the  Son  of 
God.  ...  It  is  God  which  worketh 
in  you.  ...  I  was  made  a  minister 
according  to  the  gift  of  the  grace  of 
God.  ...  I  am  made  a  minister 
according  to  the  dispensation  of 
God;  ...  in  the  sight  of  God 
speak  we  in  Christ." 

Thus,  not  "  in  a  few  scattered  texts  "  but  uniformly 
and  passionately  we  are  referred  to  God.  Prophets 
and  apostles  ask  no  recognition,  they  constantly 
point  us  to  God.  The  dominant  and  unchanging 
tone  of  the  Bible  is  God.  This  is  my  reason  for 
thinking  and  speaking  of  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of 
God. 

This  gives  me  the  right  point  of  approach  to  the 
Bible  and  all  its  contents.  All  the  detail  I  can  now 
survey  from  a  true  elevation.  So  long  as  I  mistook 
the  telegraph  messenger  for  the  telegram  itself,  I  was 
in  great  confusion.     Who  was  he?     Who  were  his 


252  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

parents?  What  was  his  age?  How  did  he  come 
to  be  connected  with  a  great  electrical  system?  I 
made  a  puzzle  of  him.  Was  he  old  enough  to  have 
written  a  telegram?  Had  he  and  another  boy  con- 
cocted the  telegram?  After  all,  was  the  missive  a 
telegram  ?  If  it  was  a  telegram,  why  was  it  not  sent 
immediately  to  me  without  the  intervention  of  a 
messenger?  And  if  a  messenger  had  to  come,  why 
almost  insult  me  by  sending  a  boy — quite  a  child,  in 
fact?  I  asked  the  boy  if  he  had  written  the  tele- 
gram, and  he  said  No.  I  demanded  to  see  the  clerk 
who  had  penciled  down  the  message,  and  he  turned 
out  to  be  little  more  than  a  boy  himself,  but  he  had 
sufficient  sense  to  suggest  that  I  had  better  open  the 
envelope  and  read  the  message.  When  I  read  it, 
the  boy  and  the  clerk  became  of  small  consequence 
to  me.  The  message  was  full  of  love.  It  was  the 
message  for  which  I  had  been  waiting  many  a  weary 
day.  I  could  have  loved  even  the  boy  who  brought 
it  to  me.  I  had  at  length  looked  at  the  whole  action 
from  the  right  point  of  view,  and  now  the  shadows 
were  dispersed  by  the  full  shining  of  the  light.  The 
right  point  of  view  is  exactly  what  we  want  in  every- 
thing.    The  theodolite  itself  may  be  in  perfect  con- 


EPILOGUE.  253 

dition,  yet  the  triangulation  will  be  bungled  if  it  is 
not  set  up  on  the  right  spot  and  at  the  right  height. 
The  mere  setting  up  of  the  theodolite  was,  we  are 
told  by  the  surveyors,  one  of  the  most  difficult  oper- 
ations in  carrying  out  the  trigonometrical  survey  of 
the  country ;  sometimes  a  scaffold  had  to  be  built  up 
to  a  great  height,  the  surveyors  say  that  they  had 
sometimes  to  build  a  solid  foundation  for  it  in  the 
middle  of  a  bog,  and  sometimes  it  had  to  be  carried 
to  the  very  summit  of  a  rocky  mountain.  So  in  our 
looking  out  upon  wider  spaces,  we  must  not  only 
have  a  well-adjusted  theodolite,  we  must  find  the 
elevation  on  which  the  instrument  must  stand,  even 
if  that  elevation  has  to  be  built  or  attained  at  the 
greatest  cost.  Then  must  follow  the  three  specific 
adjustments  of  the  instrument,  any  one  of  which 
being  wanting  or  incorrect,  triangulation  is  impossi- 
ble. It  seems  to  me  that  the  higher  critics  have  not 
always  placed  themselves  at  the  right  point  of  view 
in  attempting  to  survey  the  almost  boundless  field 
of  inspiration.  They  are,  in  some  conspicuous  in- 
stances, mere  word-grubbers  who  cannot  find  through 
grammars  and  lexicons  what  can  only  be  found  by 
incessant    and    sympathetic    communion    with   God. 


254  N0NE  LlKE  IT- 

Expertness  may  be  the  fruit  of  prayer.  If  I  start 
my  survey  of  the  Bible  from  any  other  point  than 
God,  I  am  lost  in  details.  The  Author,  not  the 
Book,  in  its  mechanical  form,  is  the  point  to  begin  at. 
This  is  markedly  so  in  the  New  Testament  as  well  as 
in  the  Old.  We  must  first  know  the  dominating  Per- 
sonality of  the  book.  That  Personality  is  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Worker,  not  the  works,  must  first  be  studied.  It 
is  beautiful  that  the  New  Testament  begins  with  the 
genealogy  of  the  Man.  God  had  no  genealogy,  so  he 
plunges  at  once  into  the  act  of  revelation  by  creation. 
Jesus  comes  to  us  by  every  human  genealogy,  and 
all  the  genealogies  vary  even  up  to  the  point  of  per- 
plexity and  contradiction,  yet  they  are  reconciled  in 
the  root,  forasmuch  as  they  trace  the  incarnation  of 
the  Son  of  man.  Jesus  is  every  man's  ancestor  and 
every  man's  descendant.  The  root  is  in  every  twig, 
and  every  twig  is  in  the  root.  Buddha  is  in  the  gen- 
ealogy, and  the  woman  who  was  a  sinner,  and  the 
man  who  murdered  his  brother,  and  the  saint  almost 
wholly  white,  and  Judas  Iscariot  who  betrayed  In- 
nocence with  a  kiss,  forasmuch  as  this  Coming  One 
was  the  Son  of  man.  "  The  Son  of  man!"  That  is 
his  genealogy  in  three  syllables.     It  reaches  beyond 


EPILOGUE.  255 

the  time-line,  for  he  who  is  thus  the  Son  of  man  is 
of  necessity  the  Son  of  God,  and  he  who  is  thus  the 
Son  of  God  is  to  me,  and  to  unnumbered  millions, 
God  the  Son!  Thus,  in  surveying  the  New  Testa- 
ment, I  think  I  place  the  theodolite  on  the  true  base. 
And  thus  the  miracles  fall  into  their  right  position 
and  yield  their  mystery  in  response  to  faith.  It  was 
only  when  I  approached  the  miracles  from  the  wrong 
point  that  they  staggered  my  inexperience.  I  talked 
of  nature,  and  laws  of  nature,  and  the  order  of  the 
universe,  and  continuity,  until  I  settled  into  that  kind 
of  wonder  the  lower  side  of  which  looks  toward 
unbelief.  But  all  was  changed  when  I  approached 
the  miracles  from  the  point  of  long  and  deep  com- 
munion with  Christ.  The  miracles  were  but  the  dust 
of  his  feet.  They  ceased  to  be  miracles.  They  were 
syllables  in  one  great  speech  of  love.  In  the  first 
instance  I  struggled  up  to  them  through  the  weak- 
ness and  gloom  of  fear:  in  the  second  I  descended 
upon  them  in  the  strength  and  glory  of  faith.  Then 
I  understood  how  he  came  to  make  so  little  of  mira- 
cles and  so  much  of  holiness,  and  then  there  shone 
upon  me  the  meaning  of  his  promise  that  the  glory 
of  his  miracles  should  be  eclipsed  by  the  "  greater 


256  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

works "  which   he   would   do   through   his   disciples 
when  he  worked  from  the  height  of  the  heavens. 

From  precisely  the  same  point  I  have  approached 
the  aspect  of  Election  which  is  known  as  Inspiration. 
What  is  inspiration  but  election  operating  along  one 
special  line?  I  do  not  think  of  individual  Jews,  a 
man  here  or  there,  as  inspired,  but  upon  Jews  as  a 
whole  or  a  unit.  They  were  in  their  corporateness 
called,  elected,  predestined,  or  otherwise  set  apart 
and  inspired.  They  were  a  chosen  people.  Yet  not 
elected  apart  from  morals.  Even  the  divine  election 
makes  self-conceit  and  self-trust  impossible :  "  If  ye 
will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant, 
then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above 
all  people."  Great  honor  in  the  King's  name  means 
great  obedience.  Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is 
excluded.  Inspiration  is  committed  to  obedience. 
Why  God  should  have  chosen  the  Jew  and  not  the 
Greek  we  cannot  explain.  Even  the  Greek  was  not 
left  without  election.  Why  Sinai  was  chosen,  and 
the  prouder  heights  of  Jerbal  passed  by,  no  man  can 
tell.  There  is  only  One  who  can  carry  forward  the 
mystery  into  light.     That  One  is  our  Father.     I  still, 


EPILOGUE.  257 

therefore,  take  my  stand  upon  that  Father's  sover- 
eignty. I  know  that  the  end  will  be  right.  Theories 
and  criticisms  will  come  and  go.  Confidence  and 
panic  will  alternate  in  the  experience  of  the  Church, 
but  the  Truth  advances  by  night  and  by  day.  We 
should  determine  to  see  the  good  that  is  in  each 
other.  Literal  criticism  is  needed,  so  is  spiritual 
interpretation,  so  is  poetic  construction,  so  is  mystic 
idealization.  We  do  not  want  uniformity  of  creed ; 
we  want  individual  conviction  sanctified  by  universal 
love.  Men  can  surely  meet  on  the  ground  of  com- 
mon service  for  Christ's  sake,  and  find  in  charity  the 
end  of  the  commandment. 


It  is  important  to  remember  that  Inspiration  and 
Revelation  are  not  one  and  the  same  thing.  Prob- 
ably there  cannot  be  Revelation  without  Inspiration, 
but  there  may  be  Inspiration  without  Revelation. 
It  may  be  proper  to  define  Revelation  as  including 
such  truths  and  facts  as  are  not  discoverable  by 
human  reason,  say,  for  example,  the  Personality  and 
the  attributes  of  the  Godhead.  But  Inspiration  may 
guide  the  mind  into  all  truth; — into  a  right  construe- 


258  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

tion  of  history,  into  a  right  grouping  and  coloring  of 
the  facts  of  life,  into  the  right  use  of  the  moral  sense ; 
in  short,  into  a  true  knowledge  of  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  the  whole  culture  of  the  soul.  A  man  may 
be  inspired  to  carve  a  statue,  or  paint  a  picture,  or 
compose  a  poem,  yet  have  no  Revelation  of  the  liv- 
ing and  gracious  God.  A  right  conception  of  this 
difference  might  simplify  and  readjust  some  theo- 
logical controversies. 


Am  I  expected,  then,  to  receive  from  so  small  a 
people  as  the  Jews  so  great  a  gift  as  a  Book  which 
is  regarded  by  Christendom  as  the  vehicle  of  a  divine 
revelation?  Am  I  in  any  prescriptive  degree  what- 
ever to  be  bound  by  that  Book  ?  Why  not  go  to  the 
Greek,  the  Roman,  or  the  Indian  mind  for  my  reve- 
lation? Is  not  the  word  "Jews"  itself  a  stumbling- 
block?  Why  not  collate  all  revelations,  dreams, 
visions,  and  aspirations,  and  get  out  of  them  a  com- 
mon revelation?  Surely  one  might  naturally  resent 
the  thought  of  Englishmen,  and  men  of  all  other 
nationalities,  being  driven  to  Palestine  to  learn  from 
misbehaving,  cruel,  lying,  selfish  Jews  who  God  is, 


EPILOGUE.  259 

and  what  he  is,  and  what  he  wants.  Is  not  this  to 
enter,  if  entering  at  all,  into  the  sanctuary  of  Reve- 
lation by  some  ill-kept  postern  gate,  rather  than 
through  the  portals  of  a  federal  and  representative 
Humanity?  I  have  no  difficulty  as  to  my  reply.  I 
might  argue  that  the  Jew  in  this  relation  was  more 
than  a  Jew ;  that  from  beginning  to  end  there  is  not 
in  the  Bible  a  shadow  of  suggestion  that  the  Reve- 
lation was  a  message  to  the  Jew  alone;  and  that 
infinitely  beyond  all  other  sacred  books  the  Bible 
is  pervaded  and  penetrated  by  what  I  may  call  the 
spirit  of  universality.  When  it  begins  there  are  no 
Jews ;  when  it  ends  there  are  no  Gentiles ;  for  at  the 
end  the  whole  earth  is  as  a  rose  in  the  garden  of 
God.  But  I  have  a  larger  answer.  I  am  already 
committed  to  the  Jews  by  an  infinite  obligation. 
From  the  Jews  I  have  accepted  the  Christ.  "  Salva- 
tion is  of  the  Jews."  This  acceptance  determines 
everything.  I  am  not  ashamed  to  receive  the  Writ- 
ing where  I  received  the  Life. 


As  to  some  of  the  biblical  books  being  supposably 
less  inspired  than    others,  such  as  Esther,  Daniel, 


26o  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Ecclesiastes,  and  Jonah,  the  case  is  not  proved ;  but 
if  proved,  the  issue  would  be  of  limited  importance. 
In  the  matter  of  gradation,  or  degree,  or  other  ob- 
scure variety,  the  construction  of  the  Bible  is  most 
remarkable.  In  some  cases  the  personality  of  the 
prophet  goes  for  much,  as  Jeremiah,  Isaiah,  and 
Ezekiel ;  in  others,  the  prophet  is  lost  in  the  proph- 
ecy. Who  knows  anything  of  Obadiah  ?  Or  Joel  ? 
Who  knows  precisely  when  Amos  took  up  his  work, 
except  that  it  was  two  years  before  the  earthquake? 
Of  Amos  and  his  junior  Hosea  we  know  some  in- 
teresting particulars ;  but  who  knows  anything  of 
Micah,  whose  father's  name  is  unknown,  and  whose 
birthplace  owes  its  fame  to  his  own  prophecy?  Yet 
Micah  spake  of  justice  and  mercy  and  the  humble 
walk  with  God.  The  minor  prophets  had  their  share* 
of  inspiration.  Inspiration  is  not  a  mechanical  term. 
The  great  and  the  small  are  the  Lord's.  Daniel 
is  not  necessarily  uninspired  because  his  mysterious 
pages  are  apocalyptic  rather  than  prophetic.  Jonah 
represents  an  inspired  conception  of  life  and  duty, 
however  much  we  may  be  perplexed  by  its  central 
difficulty.  Inspiration  touches  the  highest  and  low- 
est grades  of  faculty. 


EPILOGUE.  26l 

There  is  a  common  inspiration,  as  well  as  an  in- 
spiration that  is  unique.  "  There  is  a  spirit  in  man, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him  un- 
derstanding." The  Church  is  entitled  to  claim  this 
inspiration  in  reading  the  Bible.  Some  parts  of  the 
Bible  are  personal  and  local,  and  in  that  degree  they 
may  have  been  allowed  to  fall  into  desuetude.  The 
site  of  "  the  valley  of  craftsmen  "  is  of  no  importance 
to  us.  We  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  country 
because  some  of  its  mountain  heights  are  inaccessible. 
Many  of  us  are  compelled  to  do  with  the  Bible  as 
we  do  with  a  country :  some  valleys  are  fruitful ; 
some  rocks  are  barren.  My  pastoral  advice  to  in- 
quirers is  founded  upon  the  example  of  Christ. 
When  he  was  asked  great  questions  he  referred  the 
inquirers  to  the  law,  the  commandments,  the  proph- 
ets. This  is  what  his  ministers  must  do.  He  never 
referred  to  the  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
to  its  gospels.  The  valley  of  Megiddon  may  have 
been  blotted  out :  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  is  the 
road  to  Forgiveness. 


The  probability  is  that  some  practical  notice  will 
be  taken  of  action  that  seems  to  go  directly  in  the 


262  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

face  of  the  generally  understood  doctrinal  position  of 
various  evangelical  communions.  What  turn  the 
action  may  take  it  is  impossible  to  foresee.  Criticism 
need  not  degenerate  into  persecution.  Of  persecu- 
tion, the  whole  Christian  Church  has  had  more  than 
enough.  Criticism  of  the  most  searching  kind  we 
should  welcome  on  every  side,  but  persecution — by 
which  I  mean  public  discredit  and  forfeiture  of  posi- 
tion and  maintenance,  together  with  nameless  petty 
annoyances — we  should  regard  not  only  as  hateful 
but  as  impossible.  On  the  other  hand,  the  higher 
critics  must  not  encourage  the  spirit  of  contempt  in 
reference  even  to  the  oldest  and  slowest  orthodoxy. 
Those  who  stand  by  it  deserve  the  love  and  honor 
of  all  the  servants  of  Christ.  They  have  not  been 
ignoble  men.  God  has  used  them  to  great  ends,  and 
we  should  magnify  God  in  all  their  holy  devotion 
and  labor.  Besides,  we  must  not  suppose  that  all  the 
learning  is  on  the  one  side  and  all  the  ignorance  on 
the  other.  Some  well-instructed  men  reject  many 
of  the  conclusions  of  the  higher  criticism,  and  others 
maintain  an  attitude  of  suspicion  and  reserve.  For 
my  own  part,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  regret  the  spirit 
which  has  been  shown  by  some  young  higher  critics. 


\ 


EPILOGUE.  263 

Where  it  has  not  been  a  spirit  of  direct  insolence,  it 
has  been  a  spirit  of  studious  non-appreciation  of 
other  men — it  has  left  them  unnamed ;  it  has  had  no 
gracious  word  of  recognition  even  for  the  oldest  of 
them ;  it  has  cast  upon  them  the  unworthy  sneer 
implied  by  such  epithets  as  "  thoughtless,"  "  care- 
less," "  unthinking,"  "  baseless,"  and  "  sleek."  That 
spirit  was  surely  not  "  drenched  in  prayer,"  nor  was 
it  imbibed  in  all-night  communion  with  the  Saviour. 
Our  elder  brethren  may  have  been  mistaken,  but 
they  certainly  were  not  "  thoughtless  " ;  they  may 
have  been  blinded,  but  they  have  been  neither  "  un- 
thinking" nor  "sleek."  The  higher  criticism  may 
be  put  before  the  churches  in  a  lowly  and  tender 
spirit ;  then  it  will  be  anxiously  and  even  sympathet- 
ically considered — or  it  may  be  put  otherwise,  and 
thus  grieve  many  who  may  be  living  and  serving  in 
the  love  of  God.  The  time  has  not  yet  come  when 
we  can  realize  the  full  results  of  the  higher  criticism, 
when  unwisely  handled,  in  the  life  of  the  churches. 
At  present  it  is  somewhat  of  a  novelty.  It  has  not 
yet  settled  down  to  its  work  amongst  the  masses. 
When  it  has  done  so,  the  result  will  be  disastrous. 
One   higher  critic   read  in  the   pulpit  a  portion   of 


264  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

Scripture,  and  concluded  thus  :  "  Of  course  you  know 
it  is  not  true,  but  it  will  serve  to  illustrate  my  sub- 
ject." Another  higher  critic  announced  a  course  of 
week-evening  addresses  upon  "  Things  in  the  Bible 
that  are  not  true."  It  is  not  surprising  that  many 
Christians  are  grieved  and  shocked  by  such  wanton 
outrage  upon  decency  and  justice.  It  is  an  infinite 
wrong,  and  I,  for  one,  indignantly  denounce  it.  Such 
men  are — so  at  least  it  seems  to  me — in  their  wrong 
places  in  pulpits  that  are  even  nominally  evangelical. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  ministers  who  honestly 
avail  themselves  of  certain  results  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism in  a  spirit  of  reserve  utterly  destitute  of  blatancy 
and  defiance.  Between  two  such  classes  of  critics 
the  most  vital  distinction  must  be  drawn.  Wisely 
handled,  the  higher  criticism  may  greatly  help  the 
education  of  the  churches ;  unwisely  handled,  it  may 
wreck  their  very  existence. 


The  forces  which  are  now  antagonizing  the  Bible 
as  it  has  been  heretofore  largely  regarded,  are  the 
strongest  that  civilization  can  muster.  Within  the 
Church  are  the  higher  critics  who  have  challenged 


EPILOGUE.  265 

the  authorships,  the  dates,  the  chronologies,  and 
many  of  the  earlier  moralities,  and  have  turned  not 
a  few  of  the  ancient  leaders  and  examples  into 
"  eponymous  heroes,"  and  some  of  whom  have  not 
hesitated  to  lower  the  Apostle  Paul.  Outside  the 
Church  are  the  agnostics,  many  of  them  men  of  the 
highest  intellectual  eminence,  who  attack  the  higher 
critics  just  as  severely  as  the  higher  critics  attack 
certain  portions  of  the  Bible,  and  "  boldly  challenge  " 
them  to  prove  the  Supernatural  and  demonstrate  the 
Divine.  The  greater  havoc  some  of  the  higher 
critics  make  in  the  structural  parts  of  the  Bible  the 
more  vehemently  they  exalt  the  Supernatural,  but 
their  worship  of  the  Supernatural  is  mocked  by  the 
agnostics  as  an  infatuated  superstition — and  the  ag- 
nostics have  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  the  intel- 
lectual force  and  dignity  ranged  on  their  side.  Even 
agnostics  have  passed  through  universities,  and, 
having  done  so,  they  smile  at  the  idea  of  Revelation 
and  Worship.  They  have  won  all  along  the  line  of 
the  higher  criticism ;  who  can  say  that  they  will  not 
further  push  their  triumphs  until  they  beat  down 
and  quench  every  shrine  and  altar  and  upper  light? 
They  have  no  reason  to  be  disheartened.     In  docu- 


266  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

mentary  religion  they  have  wrought  great  havoc ; 
why  may  they  not  work  equal  havoc  in  spiritual  re- 
ligion? To  smile  at  the  suggestion  is  not  to  answer 
it.  Once  men  smiled  at  the  attacks  made  upon  the 
mechanical  and  verbal  Bible,  but  the  attacks  are  no 
longer  regarded  as  futile  or  abortive.  The  pedants 
cannot  help  us,  but  the  People  can — they  represent 
the  great  common  heart  of  the  world,  and  it  is  to 
that  heart  the  Christ  has  always  appealed.  My  hope 
is  in  the  common  heart  with  all  its  sin  and  sorrow, 
its  pain  and  need,  its  tragedy  and  self-despair;  in 
that  shattered,  grief-stricken  heart — in  that  mean 
Bethlehem — the  Child-Saviour  will  be  born  age  by 
age  while  time  endures.  The  Incarnation  stands 
between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  and  lays 
its  wounded  hands  upon  both.  It  is  the  hope  of  the 
world.  It  is  the  Infinite  Salvation.  But  how  can 
war  be  waged  with  success  against  the  ever-gather- 
ing and  overpowering  forces  of  criticism,  agnosticism, 
unbelief,  and  moral  aversion?  Modern  culture,  nar- 
rowly interpreted,  has  not  greatly  aided  the  war ;  nor 
has  Science  as  represented  by  her  highest  English 
names ; — there  is  only  one  hope,  and  that  hope  is 
the   Living   Christ  working  amongst    the    common 


EPILOGUE.  267 

people.  We  must  get  back  to  Bethlehem,  back  to 
Galilee,  back  to  Calvary.  We  must  take  Christ's 
standpoint  in  everything:  even  in  relation  to  Moses 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  and  "  all  the 
Scriptures."  Literal  errors  have  no  doubt  crept  into 
manuscripts,  translations,  and  versions ;  this  has  been 
frankly  admitted  by  the  most  competent  orthodox 
critics,  yet  I  venture  to  think  that  such  critics  are 
right  when  they  counsel  a  policy  of  caution  and 
patience,  as  against  a  policy  of  Critical  Young-Eng- 
landism  which  may  occasionally  disguise  its  cruelty 
under  an  ambiguous  civility,  and  which  may  now 
and  then  be  tempted  to  mistake  its  self-complacency 
as  the  newest  vehicle  of  inspiration. 


Writing  solely  from  a  preacher's  standpoint,  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  common  people  do  with  the  Bible 
as  to  its  structural  framework  exactly  what  they  do 
with  its  most  mysterious  teaching — they  wisely  leave 
it  until  they  are  better  fitted  to  grapple  with  the 
difficulty.  Whoever  really  enters  into  the  spiritual 
church  enters  it  by  what  may  be  called  the  gate  of 
Mystery.     It  must  not  be  imagined  that  the  median- 


268  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

ical  or  strictly  literal  part  of  the  Bible  is  either  the 
only  difficulty  or  the  greatest  difficulty.  Probably 
it  is  the  least,  and  the  least  to  be  accounted  of,  not- 
withstanding the  excitement  of  the  higher  critics.  I 
have  never  known  any  one  unite  livingly  and  sym- 
pathetically with  the  Christian  congregation  on  the 
ground  that  he  intellectually  comprehended  the 
orthodox  conception  of  the  constitution  of  the  God- 
head. As  a  pastor  I  have  thought  it  wise  to  encour- 
age the  soul  to  feed  upon  the  Saviour,  and  to  leave 
all  difficulties,  literal  and  metaphysical,  for  deferred 
consideration  and  adjustment.  Nor  is  this  an  official 
advice  adopted  to  meet  a  theological  necessity.  It 
is  the  approved  policy  of  all  life  and  progress — with- 
out it,  life  would  come  to  a  dead  stop.  I  do  not 
know  how  much,  if  anything,  Christ  owes  to  those 
who  come  to  his  cross  along  the  critical,  the  aca- 
demic, or  the  purely  intellectual  line.  I  will  not 
judge,  lest  I  wrong  a  rationalism  in  which  I  have  no 
faith.  May  not  literal  errors  be  removed?  Cer- 
tainly ;  but  do  not  magnify  their  importance.  Is  it 
not  desirable  to  have  absolutely  accurate  history? 
Certainly ;  but  not  nearly  so  literally  important  as 
some  persons  would  make  it  out  to  be.     The  real 


EPILOGUE.  269 

history  may  be  in  the  central  line,  and  not  in  the 
local  placing  and  shading.  We  may  need  a  new  way 
of  reading  history.  For  my  own  part,  I  can  read 
the  Bible  without  being  troubled  by  any  conscious- 
ness of  discrepancy,  or  any  deficiency  in  the  dating 
and  signing  of  the  several  books.  Perhaps  some  day 
a  word,  one  little  word,  may  explain  much.  I  am 
willing  to  wait.  I  have  enough  for  the  present.  I 
have  all  Eternity  to  work  in.  But  ought  not  scholars 
to  be  encouraged  to  prosecute  their  critical  studies? 
Certainly ;  and  they  ought  to  be  encouraged  to  re- 
frain from  publication  until  they  have  something 
better  to  offer  than  "  merely  a  series  of  tentative 
suggestions."  It  might  be  useful  for  them  to  issue 
a  one-sentence  report  to  the  effect  that  they  were 
steadily  at  work,  and  that,  until  they  had  definite 
conclusions  to  announce,  the  Church  would  do  well 
to  keep  on  reading  the  Bible. — I  believe  the  Church 
will  do  this,  whatever  bulletins  may  be  issued  from 
the  mines  of  criticism. 


Such  is  my  personal  testimony.     If  one  ungracious 
word  has  escaped  me  I  have  done  myself  grievous 


270  NONE  LIKE  IT. 

i  injustice,  for  I  love  and  honor  the  brethren  whose 
views  I  am  least  able  to  adopt.  They  have  taken 
their  course  and  I  have  taken  mine,  and  in  all  in- 
stances the  action  has  been  taken  under  a  solemn 
sense  of  responsibility  to  the  adorable  Head  of  the 
Church.  He  will  judge  us  all,  and  in  his  mercy  he 
will  save  the  weakest,  and  spare  even  the  bruised 
reed  that  he  may  breathe  more  music  through  it.  If 
here  or  there  a  word  with  too  keen  an  edge  has 
found  its  way  into  this  book,  may  God  forgive  it  and 
destroy  its  unhappy  influence,  for  Christ's  men  should 
be  stronger  in  love  than  in  any  other  quality.  I  am 
not  able  so  to  divide  the  Bible  into  human  and  divine, 
natural  and  supernatural,  as  to  impair  in  any  degree 
its  absolute  authority  in  doctrine  and  morals.  To 
me  it  was  not  so  much  the  writer  who  was  inspired 
as  the  man — Moses  or  Ezra,  Isaiah  or  Paul.  The 
man's  personality  was  a  greater  miracle  than  his  in- 
spiration. Consider  when  he  wrote,  what  he  wrote, 
and  consider  the  influence  which  still  flows  from  his 
writings,  and  then — account  for  him !  Do  not  be  so 
modern  as  to  be  a  critic;  be  so  ancient  as  to  be  a 
contemporary,  then — account  for  him!  Do  not  get 
at  this  man  through  a  foreign  grammar  and  an  arti- 


EPILOGUE.  271 

ficial  concordance,  but  through  sympathy,  assimila- 
tion, and  spiritual  kinship,  then — account  for  him ! 
To  understand  the  building  you  should  commune 
with  the  architect.  A  word  from  him  might  fill  his 
cathedral  with  light.  In  the  Bible  we  have  to  deal 
with  inspired  manhood  as  certainly  as  with  inspired 
literature,  with  character  more  than  with  ability,  with 
holiness  rather  than  with  office.  The  grammarian, 
as  such,  will  never  understand  the  prophet.  The 
lexicon  will  never  explain  the  Bible.  That  Book  of 
books — that  Poem  which  absorbs  all  poetry — can 
only  be  understood  in  one  way,  and  that  is  by  our 
daily  walking  and  conscious  fellowship  with  God  the 
Holy  Ghost. 


THE   END. 


